MadScientist

how can you go so wrong in one post? where should i begin?

 

not all galaxies are flat. the ones that are are flat because they spin.

 

satillites don't orbit on a plane. they wobble.

 

the effect of rotation of a body is negligible on the other body. you could orbit a planet opposite of the way the planet spins. also' date=' the moon doesn't orbit the earth. the earth and moon orbit each other. same thing with every other orbital system.[/quote']

 

Thanks for clearing my picture guys.

 

Wobbling orbits, couldn't that be down to varying strengths of gravitational fields in both bodies??

We know the Earths core is fluid and matter moves around, so small dense area could throw the gravitational field out of balance.

Or is it more like two magnetic fields repelling each other but working in the opposite way since it's gravity.

Or should I just forget all this??

 

 

I already knew about both bodies are affecting each others orbits, it's how we're detecting all these planets around other stars.

But thanks anyway.

Swan was making a valid point Philbo, I can't show him a tachyon just as he can't show me one so anything spoken on the matter can only be theoretical.

He just showed me some good reasons why they don't fit into the model of the universe.

But again I say, I was only following tachyons to their logical conclusion of having to be travelling to and from somewhere in time.. But after doing that I think I like the idea of them. If they do behave in a manner similar to my theory it means the initial big bang could have simply been a very small amount of energy that the edge of the then very small universe repelled back with more force and putting more energy into the next cycle. Until you end up at the stage where the bangs are truly big.

And as intelligent people we should leave the mud slinging to others, don't you think?? We should provide intelligent views so they can be corrected of validated by others, it's a way of learning and catching up with these clever guys.

I was thinking about gravity and it seems to work on a flat plane spanning outwards from the equator of the central body.

Galaxies tend to be flat.

Our solar system appears flat.

Even the satellites orbitting planets appear to be on the flat plane outwards from the planets equator.

Not only that but they orbitting objects seem to follow the same rotation as the central body.

I even checked it with this nice interactive applet.

http://www.solarsystem.org.uk/planet10/

Doesn't that imply two things.

1 - That the gravity emitted by the central body is strongest at the equator.

2 - That gravity causes a drag/towing effect too.

I can accept that our moon either spun off from the Earth in its molten form or more likely the Earth got hit by another huge mass which knocked a chunk off forming the moon. Whichever way it went it could be coincidence that our moon happens to orbit towards the equator and also follows the rotation of the Earth, if the Earth rotates clockwise the moon follows it clockwise, depends if you're looking from underneath or above.

But they can't all be coincidences occuring from how each interaction was formed. Why should all the moons orbit their planets in this manner or all the planets orbit the sun in this manner or even all the solar systems orbit the supermassive black hole in this manner??

If you could stop the moon using enough opposite thrust wouldn't it start orbitting the Earth in exactly the same way as it did before.

And if a body/satellite is orbitting slightly off from the equator of the central body doesn't that mean it must be moving towards that equatorial orbit?? And the composition of the satellite and date of birth is the reason why it hasn't reached that orbit yet.

So if you could find out the composition of the planet and the satellite to find out the strength of gravity for both objects.

Then calculate how far the satellites orbit is away from the equatorial orbit.

Then find the speed the satellite was orbitting at.

Couldn't you use those facts to figure out how long ago a satellite was formed or something useful like that??

Has all this been figured out long ago either to be dismissed or accepted??

No. If they have normal mass, then they have imaginary energy. If they have normal energy they must have imaginary mass.

I thought absolutely everything in the universe had to be made from the same fundamental particles albeit in different "flavours"?? The big bang just created all the fundamentals and the forces from the big bang formed them into elements, energy and everything else.

So at the moment I don't see how they can't be made from anything but fundamentals.

Because I was thinking of something else RE tachyons.

If they are indeed the same fundamental particles we're made from "bouncing" off the edge of the universe, repelled by the force of nothingness outside, since you can't destroy energy you obviously can't send it into an area of nothingness...

But that would mean for every single moment in time there would be two of the same fundamentals in the unverse. One would be travelling forwards and the other would be travelling backwards through time. I was just wondering if that could have anything to do with these entangled particles.

Here in lies the problem. When two particles are entanged, the state of either particle is indeterminent. If you do anything to either, both particles instantly take on opposite states. There lies the problem. If the "receiver" checks his particle, he doesn't know whether he is measuring a state caused by the "transmitter", or whether he himself caused the the particles to decide on a state.

Thanks for that Janus and Swan.

At my level I'm happy to just make do with a simple explanation for now.

So how does the transfer between an entangled pair work??

At the moment the way I see it passing a photon uses a different method to passing data which involves spinning something at a different speed.

So how would both methods work, if there are two methods.

And if it's right that you can pass a photon, isn't a photon a type of electron or positron or something like that?? I was wondering if we should ever find a means of creating stable entangled pairs if it could be used as a means of passing electricity because the uses for that would be incredible.

I liked your post it proves someone can actually make a good case for the hogwash of quantom physics.Sometimes it is the most simple of people who post their thoughts however incorrect the reasoning and blow huge holes in theories that simply are too stupid to be believed.Quantom physics really gets up my nose paradox after paradox,i do wish at times that good people would spend less time on ruining the science of physics.Everything is finite,schroeders cat was dead in the box.When the tree falls sound waves are created regardless of anyone being around to hear it.Just because we cannot understand things dont spoil the science by evolving it into gibberish.Even Einstein said this is crap.

Thanks philbo,

I'll be glad if even just one person got something from it but I feel the need to clarify something.

I'm not saying tachyons can't exist, all I'm saying is whenever someone mentions tachyons that that's what they surely must be. The question then is whether you can accept it all or not.

I'd like to hear any views on whether my theory on tachyons is right or wrong though.

I was just thinking about tachyons, yes I know they're only theoretical and said to be used to explain away a hole in a theory but assuming they do exist...

Wouldn't they be made from the same fundamental particles (strings or whatever) that everything else is made from??

And if a tachyon is travelling faster than the speed of light and backwards in time doesn't that mean they're travelling to the start of the universe since they can't exist before it started because there'd be nowhere for them to exist.

And what could possibly take a collection of fundamentals and create one of these tachyons, wouldn't it take a phenomenal amount of energy to send something off at a speed faster than light??

It would need to be something more powerful than a sun since even a sun can only send out particles with enough energy to travel at the speed of light. But doesn't a black hole have more energy than a sun??

What if the body that creates tachyons also created gravity, some of the energy escapes as gravity and some as tachyons, explaining the weaker than expected gravity we have. But all bodies emit gravity so all bodies would need to be powerful enough to create tachyons since all gravity is weaker than we expect it to be.

So tachyons could only really be coming from one place, a force of greater power than the initial big bang.

An analogy would be tennis, the server sends the ball which would be the big bang, the ball travels across the court which would be the timeline of everything in the universe then the receiver returns the ball. To return the ball the receiver is going to have to use as much force as the server used and to send the ball even faster than the server they're going to need to use even more energy than the server used.

So what happens when the tachyons reach their destination, the big bang??

They've got all that extra energy so when they collded in this now vastly smaller sized universe they would set off an even bigger big bang where the fundamentals from the tachyons were reshaped into new particles that formed elements that formed us...

But that leads to another implication about what the universe is.

That the very first cycle of this big bang out and tachyon back loop was really small, it fired particles out which didn't form much of anything, then they returned as tachyons and got fired out again but with more energy thus forming a larger universe. The cycle continues over and over until the cycles are long enough for life to form on a planet labelled as Earth.

The only way I can describe what this phenomena is that sends fundamentals back as tachyons is the big bang is expanding into nothing, which acts like a gas tank container. As the big bang expands it fills the container and buids up pressure against it. So eventually the pressure outside the universe forces it back with more energy as tachyons.

It also means the universe can only expand into the same finite amount of nothingness each cycle, which means our universe too.

So as galaxies or other collections of particles reached the nothingness they got mangled into a new form we call a tachyon and rebound back into the universe with more energy. The nothingness would be as good as a vacuum but working inversely, instead of the universe saying to the vacuum "I don't like you so I'm going to throw particles into you." the nothingness would be saying "I don't like you so I'm throwing you back." As if there's a pressure level the nothingness can take before it throws particles back. The more energy used to reach that pressure level the more energy it throws them back with.

AFAIKnow the only way to prove that would be to see a galaxy moving into the nothingness and getting converted into tachyons as it did so.

So long as the galaxies we can see ahead of us aren't moving into this nothingness we should be okay, shouldn't we?? Maybe the light travelling for millions of years or whatever from these galaxies they could have already reached it and we just can't see it yet.

Another important implication is that the same fundamental particle would exist travelling out from the big bang as a particle we can detect and at the same time travelling backwards through time and at some point in time both particles will exist at the same time and they would be the same fundamental particles. Wouldn't they??

Isn't that just what anyone who mentions tachyons is implying??

It all souds logical to me.

One of my crazy ideas that leads me to is..

What if you could recreate this nothingness in our universe and manipulate a tachyon in some way as to embed a message in the fundamentals of some kind??

You could pass a message onto the next cycle of the universe in as many fundamentals as you could send back as tachyons.

Wouldn't it be great if one day we learned how to fully examine a fundamental and one of them happened to be one of these very rare ones with a message embedded in another dimension or something from a species that existed in a previous cycle??

I've mentioned it before in other threads but I imagine if these fundamentals can exist in higher dimensions they would be far larger than they are in ours and be capable of storing vast amounts of information.

So an embedded message could be huge and contain all the information they ever discovered about how the universe works. It would be the ultimate message in a bottle.

grrrrrr....not MADE OF strings. they ARE strings(according to string theory)

 

quarks are not composed of anything. if they were' date=' they wouldn't be elmentary particles, now would they?[/quote']

 

Sorry about this yourdad, I'm not trying to be clever here, I'm just trying to find out the facts the best I can but are you saying these guys are wrong??

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/scale.html

In that Sense Of Scale applet it shows the scale from an apple right down to a quark but then it goes down to show a string. Implying that a string is something far smaller than a quark and that quarks are made from lots of strings.

 

Like I said, I'd just like to see evidence to the opposite so I know the facts.

 

 

On a side note...

If quarks are strings, not really important to this AFAIK anyway but the smallest particle everything can be made from.

Where do they come from??

 

I was thinking about the life cycle of a solar system, the particles that make the subsequent solar system don't start with the formation of a star do they?? Can they be traced right back to the star factory (the gasseous nebulas IIRC) where these "fundamental particles" are just reassembled into something that will create a star and go on to create a solar system.

 

Doesn't that imply that these fundamental particles have been used in a previous solar system whose sun died leaving just the fundamentals lying around to form part of a new star factory and solar system. That would mean the strings (or whatever) that make each of us up are as old as the universe and some of them could have been used to create previous life forms or even basic elements in a rock or anything else.

 

 

I should warn you here that I'm interested in how quantum mechanics could be used to explain esoteric things such as telepathy, telekenisis, remote viewing, ghosts and even human thought. Which will probably be considered by most as crazy nonsense but they are just theories like string theory until it's proven or disproven.

 

So to take things to the crazy level..

If you believe in the quantum consciousness, that the thoughts you think are just these "strings" working in unison to affect the thoughts and decisions you make. At some level these strings would have to be able to work in unison to store memory too.

Would it be possible for a string, which can expand into other higher dimensions where it might expand in size?? If it was that large couldn't they store their previous states in another dimension as memories..

That would mean even something inanimate like a chair made from the same strings ourselves are made from have memories and the ability to become a part of a person to influence thoughts.. But a chair being a chair whose strings aren't connected in the correct way to actually think and thus relay their memories.

And say one single string could store the memories of all strings or somehow in another lower dimension they were all interconnected. If you trace them down through a 2D universe to a 1D universe and to a 0D universe which would act as an anchor point for them where they all converged.

Now what if they could work in unison as a collection of strings in our dimension and project a memory in a way we can't as human beings??

They might transmit a memory to a person as a ghost.

 

 

 

And if you're still reading this, here's something else for you to think about.

I think it's almost certainly stepping into the realms of nonsense though.

 

Assuming the aliens we're supposedly seeing in the skies are physical and not ghosts why don't people report seeing ghosts of aliens here on Earth??

Two reasons:

#1 The universe is supposedly only around 12.5 to 15 bllion years old, so there won't be many previous memories for a string to store yet.

#2 In a star factory the funadmentals from a previous solar system will be diluted with fundamentals from other solar systems or other elements of a galaxy. Because maybe it takes several strings from a previous object to project the memories of one string in the new object, like they can only project their memories working in unison as we do, our strings simply project their memories of our lives to us inside our minds.

 

The huge flaw in all this of course is, why don't they show ghosts of other inanimate objects instead of just people??

And why don't our strings project ghosts too??

Which is why it's probably nonsense and I apologise for that.

Things behave as if they were waves. The wavelength is h/p, where h is Plack's constant and p is momentum. So things that we often call particles also exhibit wave behavior, like interference and diffraction.

COOL!!! I just realised I finally get to pick the brains of some guys who can exaplain all this stuff to me.

I'm 36 and never studied any of this subject as a student amongst others, I'm self teaching myself through the net.

So, thanks for that Swan but I have some more questions on this matter.

When we show a wave such as a radio wave we show it on a graph with the frequency and amplitude. I'm struggling to see how that relates to energy travelling as waves.

Am I correct in assuming that each vertical point (amplitude) is the particles energy??

Is the frequency the wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum OR is it the timeline of the particles existence and each vertical point on the graph is its energy at that moment in time??

If it is the timeline for the particle where does wavelength come into things??

All I can relate to is tuning a radio in to a different frequency, if the frequency is the timeline how can you tune into a different frequency? Aren't we actually tuning into a different wavelength??

TIA...

Changing the spin of 1 destroys the entanglement. Measuring the spin of 2 destroys the entanglement.

I'm trying my best to follow all this but I'm struggling.

I'm not sure what Swan means here, does s/he mean once you've spun the sender and measured the receiver that the linked pair is broken so you can only send one "bit" of data then that's it, you need to create a new pair...

Or is there a way to preserve the pair??

And as amazing as these entangled pairs are isn't it going to be more amazing to find out how the reflection can be sent over vast distances?? Be it passing through another dimension or using some unknown as yet energy force like tachyons or something like that.

Like if we find out an interdimensional thingy was created we could do it on a larger scale.

And aren't a lot of people forgetting this is all early days for entangled particles?? Saying you simply CANNOT do this or that and you can only do this and this with them, isn't that like saying radio waves are ONLY good for sending out radio signals, when we frist discovered them. Yet now we have radar, television and other things.

Do we know for a fact that they have these limitations and we'll never discover new things about them??

And how the Hell do you create an entangled pair of particles in the first place??

I've seen a few sites on the subject and they all go babbling on about sending this and that from one particle to another but not how to create them. Is it really simple or do you need a 20 mile long particle accelerator because these quantum computers are gonna be a bit cumbersome if they do, I'd have to move into a bigger house.

Does anyone know of a site that explains this kind of thing in simpler terms??

The other thing that puzzles me is this photon teleportation or whatever.

If you can send a photon from one location to another is there any reason we can't send other types of particles??

Because I was wondering about electrons. Instead of a cable to carry electricity, create a lot of entangled pairs and send the current through those.

What about an entangled pair television/monitor screen?? An array of entangled pairs acting as receivers on the monitor screen and an array of transmitters on the graphics card sending the photons that way. A monitor/TV like that would put these LCD tubeless systems to shame.

I suppose it would take quite a lot of particles though...

Time dialtion is dependent on relative speed only, not on spatial sepration (though spatial sepreation certianly is important to simulataneity), so if I was travelling at 0.99c relative to a very far awya galaxy then from my point of view 'clocks on that galaxy would appear to me slower and from their point of view my clocks would be running slower. Of course in there own refrence frame evryone considers themself to be at rest.

Yes I understand what you mean.

What I'm trying to say is if you left our galaxy and stopped moving so you're not moving in relation to any other body in the universe, your atomic clock would appear to be ticking faster than anyone elses.

I suppose with the universe either expanding or contracting in size you'd still be moving but still at the slowest rate possible compared to everything else.

So to come to a true dead stop you would have to leave our universe.

read my reply to the post you quoted.

The one about all motion/speed being relative?

I can understand that but why couldn't something leave a galaxy and stop moving completely??

Granted it would still be relative to all the other galaxies in the universe but it wouldn't be travelling through space, would it??

Which would mean the time dilation effect of travelling closer to the speed of light to slow time would be affecting this object in the least possible way.

that is usually refered to as the grandfather paradox. there are several answers. basically, no one knows. a popular theory is that you create a new universe when you travel back in time.

I find parallel universes hard to accept and I think the other theory is far cooler.

You discover time travel and go back to kill your father before your conception. You can't do that because if you did you wouldn't be able to go back in time to kill your father. But if you discover the means to travel back to try and kill him something must go wrong with your insane plan, the gun you use missfires and your father kicks your arse so you end up in jail for attempted murder...

But I realised a nice twist to that which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else so...

You go back to meet yourself 15 years ago and explain who you are and how you got back in time. So that means nothing at all can happen to prevent you getting to the time where you discover time travel. Firing a loaded gun at your head would result in a missfire. Jumping out of a plane and you'd survive.

What you'd most likely do though is freak out and become paranoid about safety, even though you knew you would live for another 15 years no matter what you did.

And if it's not already been done, I want a cut of the profits from the movie.

I was recently thinking about this as well. And the answer seems quite logical now. Consider this:

 

The sun is not the center of the universe. Nor is it stationary. The speed that pluto is moving' date=' in relation to the earth, is not much different, considering the speed that our sun is moving in the galaxy. And the speed our galaxy is moving. Etc. Etc. I have no idea how *absolutely* fast we are moving, relative to the center of the universe, but might it be theoretically possible that something at the center of the universe, at a perfectly relativistic standstill, would be accelerated through time at a rate directly proportional to the rate at which we age, divided by the ratio of our absolute speed through the universe to the speed of light?[/quote']

 

Yeah, after seeing that I remember thinking up something similar a while ago now. The idea I had would be to just travel outside our galaxy and come to a dead stop, you wouldn't need to travel to the centre of the universe. Since you were at a dead stop the opposite time dilation effect of slowing should play more of a role on you, because you'd be travelling as slow as possible from the speed of light.

 

Wouldn't that be the time frame used on a universal scale?? Adding the speed of whichever heavenly body you were examining to find it's relative time or something like that??

and no' date=' im not looking for an analogy. i have heard dozens of analogies. i understand the idea(or at least i think i do), i know what the effects supposedly are, i want to understand why.

 

consider the following:

 

a------b------c

 

person "a" is moving left at 1/2c with repect to person "b", person "c" is moving right at 1/2c with respect to person "b". in person "b"s eyes, they are both moving 1/2c faster than himself and will there for experience the effects of time dialation. in person "a"s eyes, "b" is moving 1/2c faster than himself and "c" is moving a full c faster than himself. so "a" thinks "b" is aging at 1/2 speed and "c" isnt aging at all. "b" thinks "a" and "c" are both aging 1/2 speed. who is right? this could work if time dialtion factored in direction. if "a" could be going negative and "c" positive then it would all match up. am i missing something?[/quote']

 

Yeah, I think you should forget about direction.

I'm assuming person B is standing still, right??

And that you're saying person A from their perspective will be moving at twice the speed of person C.

 

What you need to remember is direction has no bearing on this time dilation thing, the law is the closer to the speed of light you move the slower time seems to pass for you in relation to things travelling at different speeds.

Whether 2 objects/people are moving along parallel or in opposite directions doesn't come into it. If they were both travelling at 1/2c then they'd both be moving through time at the same rate no matter which direction.

 

Hope that helps and more importantly I hope it's right.

 

 

I don't know if this is right or of any help but...

Isn't light speed like a universal time keeper??

The rate that time passes at light speed being universal time, the slower you move the faster you feel like you're moving through time.

i have looked into relativity. i read a book that is supposed to explain it. it used a garbage example about a mirror and not being able to see your reflection. any moron could tell that it was a closed minded way of viewing the problem and it had logical flaws. a few years ago i was very interested it in relativity(and more importantly time dialation) and asked everyone i could find' date=' including a few physics teachers i knew, and no one found a way of explaining it that didnt have a very large flaw in the logic. id tell them why it didnt make sense and they would be stumped and say things like "when this guy explained it to me it made sense, im forgetting something." it was pretty irritating.

 

so i saw a thread on time travel and decided to give it another shot. as for your equations, they may be perfectly fine, but you could throw out any equation you wanted and im sure if we assume its correct you could prove that time dialation works. its the process of coming up with said equations that always seems to be flawed.[/quote']

 

First off, thanks to yourdadonapogos and Tycho? for answering my query, I'm still "relatively" new to all this and sometimes I get the travelling fast means slowing time down back to front in different perspectives, so thanks for clearing that one up.

Basically the faster you travel than other people the slower time moves for you than the other people, that's right isn't it??

 

 

And I think what Callipygous is looking for is an analogy he can apply to the phenomenon. Like I said, I'm finding it pretty difficult to grasp but I think that's because there are no real analogies you can apply to it. The only thing you can really do is look at the experiments and treat those as an analogy.

 

So this probably needs correcting, especially the things used and the figures but the basic principle should be sound.

I remember reading about an experiment they did. They stuck an atomic clock in either a fast train or a fast plane, when the plane landed the clock on board had lost a really small amount of time, something like a billionth of a second or something like that.

 

Another thing I remember reading somewhere was that satellites need to compensate for the time dilation effects, since they're orbitting the Earth at 20,000mph or something like that and everything left on Earth is moving at its slower pace.

 

The best analogy you can make after accepting those facts is..

Two twin brothers, one goes up in orbit for a while and the other stays on Earth. The one who went into space comes back slightly younger than his brother who stayed on Earth.

 

 

The thing that's now making my brain melt is if that's true where does that leave other heavenly bodies?? Say Pluto was orbitting the Sun twice as fast as our Earth was, doesn't that mean that Pluto will be physically younger than the Earth??

If it's moving faster it should be aging slower, shouldn't it??

And if that's right it should apply to every body in the universe, shouldn't it??

 

Another thing I can't help wondering about is Einstein told us and we proved it, that energy and matter are interchangeable. Atoms are made from protons, electrons and neutrons and energy is made from the same things.

Okay, I know it'd be pretty difficult to turn a human being into energy then reassemble the person but if you could do that doesn't that mean that light speed and therefore travelling into the future at a faster rate is possible??

I've heard about a theory where (as MadScientist stated) consciousness lies in the very, very sub-atomic levels, and can actually do superposition (which means existing at two places at the same time), which would explain "expanded consciousness". Does anyone know more about it?

I don't know anything about this expanded consciousness but I can tell you how to get a deeper perspective of yourself and the universe around you.

It's kinda flakey but most science appears that way to me these days.

First I started off by creating a virtual/simulated universe in my mind, it was just a huge sphere showing the energy given off from the big bang. Then I pressed a virtual button and filtered out all those waves so I was just left with the major bodies like galaxies. What I'd do then would be to zoom in on one galaxy and filter out everything from galaxies (including the one I'd zoomed in on so I was left with just the solar systems and gas clouds.

Then I'd keep zooming in using the same process until I zoomed into the room I was sitting in, where I'd finally zoom in on myself.

But all through that I'd be looking at each thing and getting a feel for how it works IYKWIM.

Then I found another exercise, which was looking at something then visualising it as just a collection of strings of energy.

Which lead to another one.

I imagined my hand beside a square piece of metal, then beside the metal a glass of water and finally just fresh air.

I zoomed right into my hand visualising it as strings then panned across over to the metal, then the water and finally to the air.

Visualising things that close up all I could make out was strings, I couldn't tell metal from flesh.

The weird thing was it got easier and easier to do it and my perception of everything was changing.

I don't profess to fully understand how string theory works or much else but I think the important thing is to just zoom in on things at their lowest level, whatever that may be for yourself.

It got kinda crazy then so I stopped. I was thinking if the strings that make my hand can move the strings making up water or air out of its way why can't those same strings in my hand tell the strings of a brick to move out of their way?? I was visualising the strings in my hand sending a signal to the strings that make the air or water telling them "We're bonded together stronger than you guys so move." Like I said though, I gave up cos it was getting a bit crazy..

But one thing that did make me think was.

If you take a Tibettan monk or someone like that who can meditate and do weird things like supporting their whole body weight on one finger, or the martial arts guys who use Chi energy, I'm sure you get the picture - all these mind over matter experts.. Those Chi masters seem to be able to overcome so much like smashing through blocks or towing a car with a delicate part of their anatomy.

I was wondering if they had a finer perspective on the universe how much more they could achieve.

The simplest experiment I could come up with was overcoming pain.

I found the safe distance to hold a naked flame under my hand then timed myself to see how long I could endure it. Just concentrating on blocking the pain by ignoring it I could manage about 5 seconds.

The weird thing though was when I used my new string level perception and concentrated hard on the strings blocking those signals, I could manage about 20 seconds that way.

Not really related but...

I recently came up with another theory for helping to overcome pain. The pain caused by heat from a naked flame or whatever is just going to become a memory. So whilst holding my hand over the flame I'd be thinking "The flame isn't close enough to cause any permenant damage and the pain you're feeling right now will just be a memory so just ignore it."

I got around 20 seconds using that method too but it's not really scientific since the earlier method might have been affecting this one at a small level.

Back to QM though.

Another crazy though I had was, if these strings (or whatever you call them) can send a signal to other strings telling them to all bond together to form an atom and eventually a full object.

And if my consciousness is just the strings that make my brain, those strings must work together to send a signal to another part of my body in the same way they tell each other to group up and make a person.

A radio transmitter can send out signals, I assume those waves would be made from strings too.

Why can't the strings in my brain work together to do some Jedi Knight stuff.

I say again though, I did stop all this because it was getting a little crazy.

I never actually tried concentrating so I could push my finger through a brick wall or levitate something across the room.

Diversing a little..

I was wondering about memory, the strings that make the cells that store memories must have to hold a pattern for a while, which may be a strain for them so they need to rest, perhaps telling other strings in other cells to hold the memory for a while. Which might explain why we need to sleep.

If that's right then it leads to other bizarre implications.

If strings can hold a state like that it might explain other weird phenomena.

Like ghosts being strings that get shunted through another dimension and only have enough energy to form a dilated image of the person they make.

Then there's the really crazy stuff RE other dimensions.

If each string exists in all dimensions at the same time and place but just look different in each dimension.

I visualised how that would work.

Imagine a length of string, push it through a piece of paper and that's the string in a 2D universe, then another piece of paper as a 1D universe - it would just be a long line and the length of string would expand to pass through a differently shaped hole. The piece of string coming out of the top sheet is obviously the string in our 3D universe but put a ball on top of the string and that's the 4D universe.

Being a length of string though you can pull it back and forth through the different dimensions, imagining it expanding/contracting as it passes through each one.

I've no idea what that implies, it's just something crazy I came up with.

What I can't visualise is if a ship flew across our heavens at the speed of light for 93 million miles and I was on it and it took me 8 minutes to make the journey. How would that affect time on Earth in relation to my own??

Travelling at lightspeed it would take me 8 minutes and the people left on Earth would see it for 8 minutes too.

Our sun is moving through our galaxy so when we look at the sun it is actually moved in relation to where it was 8 minutes ago which is what we see.

If I'm travelling 93 million miles at light speed and it takes me 8 minutes the people on Earth will still only see me 8 minutes away from where I started. Won't they??

Thanks for all the replies but I'm still no wiser, maybe I should try rephrasing my question.

Say the ship (in the quote above) was magically converted into light wave particles near our Sun and travelled to Earth as light. The ship would still be the same thing with people still living on it as normal but it would be made from light particles, we're talking Harry Potter fantasyland magic here.

Since it's travelling at the speed of light it would make the 93 million mile journey in around 8 minutes.

How can those people set off from near the Sun at 5pm and arrive here at 5:08pm according to our clocks but arrive much further into the future according to their clocks on the ship??

Doesn't light from the Sun go through the same time distortions??

Einsteins theory just sort of breaks apart when I think about it like this...

I've had a quick look around and can't find this stuff mentioned anywhere, closest I came to was Quantum Brain Theory but that's different to what I've been thinking about. So I figured I'd run it past you guys...

I'll try my best to explain it so bear with me.

I wasn't sure which forum to post this to but since it deals with quantum sized objects

In the beginning we all thought we were just one thing, we being ourselves, our consciousnesses - the thing that makes each of us ourselves.

Then we soon found out we're made from different things like teeth, bones, skin, hair, organs, a brain etc.. We find out our consciousnesses lie inside our brains.

Then we find out all those other bits of us are made from smaller things, the brain is no longer just one thing, it's a collection of different things like the cerebellum and the cerebrum, so I (my consciousness) is no longer just my brain it's all those sepearate areas of my brain. All doing different jobs, some storing memories, some processing visual images, some deciding how I make decisions, etc..

But even those seperate areas of the brain are made from smaller things called cells.

But those cells are made from even smaller things, which in turn are made from atoms which in turn are made from protons, electrons and neutrons which are made from quarks and gluons...

I favour most of the string theorists ideas that even those quarks and gluons are made from something even smaller, even if they're not it's not really important.

The point I'm trying to make is that the smaller sized parts you break the brain down to, right down to quarks or further, that's what my consciousness is made from.

Try shifting your perspective of what you are along the above scale of the brain.

Instead of thinking of yourself as a brain inside a body go back to an animals perspective and think of yourself as just your whole body, not knowing anything about what's inside it. From that perspective you're just your body in the universe.

Thinking of yourself as a brain however you think of yourself as a brain inside a body in the universe. It's like you've stepped inside yourself a little more.

When you think of yourself as a collection of cells you step inside yourself even more, think of yourself as strings or whatever the smallest particle in the universe is and you step right into yourself and your perspective of what you are shifts as far as possible from an animals perspective of what it is.

Trying to put it another way...

The brain cells involved in making a yes/no or this/that decision only come to their decision based on the way they're constructed. Say those cells came to a "this" answer, if a few atoms had been placed differently or the cell had more/less of one or more kind of atom than before wouldn't they have a chance to cause the answer to have been a "that"??

So what causes those atoms to be placed the way they were?? Other atoms, right??

And the number of protons, electrons and neutrons determine what the atom is like and the quarks and gluons determine what those protons, electrons and neutrons are like, what tells those other atoms to be the way they are is what my consciousness is, right??

Imagine a powerful electric motor with a huge unbalanced weighted arm on it, place that inside a car and drive it along with the motor quickly spinning away, the weight displacement would affect the cars handling. Wouldn't the strings have the same affect on whatever they make, which in turn would affect the handling of what they make, right up to the whole brain itself.

Does that make any sense to anyone else??

I've been thinking about how to do it and came up with these theories.

Travelling to the future or past using the closer to the speed of light you travel the slower time passes for you law of relativity.

I think you can travel into Earths future by getting in a space ship and travelling really fast for a few years. So what?? It'll be easier for us to perfect cryogenic suspension or whatever and travel into Earths future without even aging a day never mind a few years. So it's pretty pointless using high speed to travel into Earths future faster than you already are.

Travelling faster than the speed of light, why do people think once you pass the speed of light you're travelling backwards in time??

Consider this, you get a ship capable of lightspeed.

It travels 93 million miles in 8 minutes, you doulbe its speed and it takes it 4 minutes, double it again and it takes 2 minutes you keep doubling the speed and halfing the time needed to travell those 93 million miles. Until the doubling of speed only reduces the time needed from 0.00002 seconds to 0.000005 seconds. You will never get it to turn into -1 second or -8 minutes to travel 93 milllion miles.

What I can't visualise is if a ship flew across our heavens at the speed of light for 93 million miles and I was on it and it took me 8 minutes to make the journey. How would that affect time on Earth in relation to my own??

Travelling at lightspeed it would take me 8 minutes and the people left on Earth would see it for 8 minutes too.

Our sun is moving through our galaxy so when we look at the sun it is actually moved in relation to where it was 8 minutes ago which is what we see.

If I'm travelling 93 million miles at light speed and it takes me 8 minutes the people on Earth will still only see me 8 minutes away from where I started. Won't they??

I have a wild theory on travelling to the dawn of time though.

It depends on how the universe works though, some of which I don't know.

What do black holes eat? Is it energy, matter and space itself or just energy and matter??

Is the universe heading towards a super supermassive black hole??

There's a supermassive black hole at the centre of every galaxy, doesn't that mean all galaxies will eventually become just bigger supermassive black holes??

And if galaxies can collide can't they all collide and form one huge super supermassive black hole that can't contain all the matter/energy and blow it out in a big bang. An infinitely self replicating universe??

If black holes don't eat space itself, in other words you could have this SSBH but the space (universe less any matter/energy) around it still exists, couldn't you?

All you'd need to do then is live for a very VERY long time and hang around for the next universe to be created. Then you could go and visit the lifeforms that evolve in that universe.

I was oriiginally thinking you'd be able to visit Alexander the Great or someone but the universe wouldn't create itself in exactly the same way because your ship wouldn't be part of the matter spewing from the SSBH causing knock on effects that lead to the creation of Alexander the Great or even Earth for that matter.

But you could travel to the birth of the next universe and have a head start on any life that develloped in it.

I'm 50/50 on whether it's possible for us to be able to live that long, even through lengthening the human lifespan to 2 or 300 years, perfecting cloning and conscioussnes transference into the cloned body. But as life we could, our descendants would have to be the ones witnessing the new universe.

But they'd be able to do lots of crazy things like guiding a species towards living in peace and harmony by reenforcing their religious beliefs, appearing on top of a mountain and giving some guy some guidelines or transferring one of our peoples conscioussneses into one of their bodies and doing some unbelievable tricks.

Then once they reach that state of peace we can start introducing ourselves and teaching them what we know.

You could say that's what the aliens we're allegedly seeing right now are, then again they could have been born in this universe and just have developed before we have...