# ogr8bearded1

Members

10

1. ## time travel i believe it possible

When it comes to time travel, the most interesting question I ever heard was "Do we stand still and time moves, or does time stand still and we move?" If we are the ones doing the moving, then it would stand to reason we would only have to move in a different way to travel in time. I figure the main danger to time travellers is how would you arrive at your destination? If it wasn't a complete and true vacuum what happens to the matter already there when you 'pop' in? If you move from one time to another shouldn't you also have to have moved in space? With the Sun and Earth both moving in space most likely you'd end up in space with the small chance of being inside an object. One thing I can say for sure, time travel will never be possible in my lifetime, because I have a promise to myself to come visit if it were and that hasn't happened
2. ## What is a feasible way for the nature to generate an Atom?

I'd say the answer could be found in the following two wiki pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton The relevant parts would be as follows: Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence of another particle (another boson, or even a fermion) which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be created out of two photons. The law of conservation of energy sets a minimum photon energy required for creation of a pair of fermions: this threshold energy must be greater than the total rest energy of the fermions created. To create an electron-positron pair the total energy of the photons must be at least 2mec2 = 2 × 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV (me is the mass of one electron and c is the speed of light in vacuum), an energy value that corresponds to soft gamma ray photons. The creation of a much more massive pair, like a proton and antiproton, requires photons with energy of more than 1.88 GeV (hard gamma ray photons). (wiki matter creation) At sufficiently low temperatures, free protons will bind to electrons. However, the character of such bound protons does not change, and they remain protons. A fast proton moving through matter will slow by interactions with electrons and nuclei, until it is captured by the electron cloud of an atom. The result is a protonated atom, which is a chemical compound of hydrogen. In vacuum, when free electrons are present, a sufficiently slow proton may pick up a single free electron, becoming a neutral hydrogen atom, which is chemically a free radical. Such "free hydrogen atoms" tend to react chemically with many other types of atoms at sufficiently low energies. When free hydrogen atoms react with each other, they form neutral hydrogen molecules (H2), which are the most common molecular component of molecular clouds in interstellar space. (wiki proton) So, we have the (massive) energy of two photons making a proton/antiproton pair and then two less energetic photons making electron/positron pair which could result in to making a hydrogen atom/anti matter hydrogen atom pair when the temperature is sufficiently low. Why they don't cancel each other out is just one of those mysteries. You may find these interesting also, especially the part on proton-antiprotons in annihilation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation
3. ## Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Photons

Okay, I'm looking at the maths and will see what I can do with it. Not sure how much math I'm going to have to learn on this so unsure how long will take so please bear with me. So far I've given a quick look over and may have a question at some point, if you don't mind, if I can't find something on the web which gives me a clear understanding but I think I will be able to do so. I don't know if I can do so and support what I've said or not, but then that's the whole point of you asking for it In the meantime if you do have any other questions that come to you don't hesitate to post them.
4. ## Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Photons

No problem, I was fairly sure you meant something different and glad we cleared it up. Without doing any research yet and giving my brain a short time to subconsciously mull it over my gut says to go with entropy for the loss of any energy that causes a frequency or wavelength change in the light. This comes from when I stated it was the fact that in space viewed as inflating there are more photons transferring the energy to each other there than in gravity bound space. Also you should keep in mind there is no momentum as in movement of a particle as the photon is set, or locked in position, within the space-time Universe. If momentum included the gap jump of the energy then I will have to see how its effected. It is possible the unexcited photon has only spin if anything at all. If this is good enough we can consider the point answered. If not I will see if I can study and do better. I would like to take the opportunity to thank-you for your questions and hope I am doing a good job of defending my position in an understandable way and don't appear to be a 'quack' practicing pseudo-science with my answers. To give you a picture of where this idea came from, I had the thought come to me and wrote my post all within an hour. Questions help me see where I may have been unclear or did not explain at all. I do have other ideas that probably are pure bunk, but this is the first time I felt I was on solid enough ground to propose one of my thoughts.

6. ## Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Photons

There is no math to provide as I am not changing any of the current math. I am proposing something that does not change the observations of what is happening but HOW it is happening. In doing so I have removed the need for a lot of fudging, inventing complicated explanations or just having to throw one's hands up and saying "That's just the way it is, we don't know why." Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is the best. Here is an excellent visual of what I am saying happens. Get a paperback book and open it somewhere near the middle. For ten pages draw a line of ten circles like this O O O O O O O O O O on each page in the same relative position as the prior page. Now, fill in the first circle on the first page, the second circle on the next page and so forth so that each page has the corresponding circle darkened. Now flip through the page by fanning them. You will see the darkened circle appear to move from one circle to the next. This is what I say is happening. Now, go back and erase from each page any circle that is not darkened and flip through again. This is what we think we see. We cannot see the unexcited photon so it appears the photon alone is moving as we flip the pages. I postulate that there is an aether and that this is what we are currently calling Dark Matter. Since the photon cannot be viewed except in an excited state there appears to be no aether. Dark matter can be detected but not seen and this has led to the belief that light does not need a medium to function. There is no motion to be detected as photons are integrated in place within space-time. There is a vibration only as one photon transfers it energy to the next at which point it falls back to being dark matter. Photons are not influenced by gravity, their place in space-time is set, however the curve of space due to gravity of a body does change the shape of space-time. This makes it appear the photon has moved further from the next photon when it is actually space-time that has curved. I am willing to concede there is no vibration and that the transfer could be similar to the way electricity can arc a gap between two poles, though it could be the vibration needed is so small as to be undetectable. In a Black Hole environment either the curve of space is too great for a vibration of one photon to reach another or it is similar to two metal poles being moved far enough apart that electricity cannot cross the gap. The photon cannot 'fall' into the black hole as it is set in space-time. For a visual look at a concrete sidewalk. The pebbles you see are the photons and they do not move independently of the concrete. But if you could curve or bend the concrete they would appear to move further apart. I will also concede that my explanation of Dark Energy is my weakest point and that could require more investigation. Another proof of Occam's Razor I failed to mention in my prior post is the need for 'virtual photons.' Science currently says that a photon can be virtual, appearing from nothing and returning to nothing as long as it virtually exists for only a short period of time. Science also says that the longer it does virtually exist, the more it takes on the properties of a real photon. I don't need a virtual photon, my photon was always there. It doesn't appear from nothing, it gets excited. Neither does it disappear to nothing, it returns to its prior unseen state.

8. ## Defining a point in space with two parameters.

Instead of many balls surrounding your vessel, wouldn't it be better to imagine one sphere surrounding it? Such as imagine yourself at the centre of a clear globe with longitude and latitude lines drawn on it. Point the nose of the vessel in the direction you want to travel and the corresponding lat. and long. the nose points to are used to describe that direction. At the same time, so as not to get lost, you would still need to track your progress on a standard cube shaped 3D map with a set 0,0,0 co-ordinate.
9. ## A lingual theory of everything

Let me see if I can defuse the situation between Split Infinity and SamBridge. First, I think you should both realise you are using the word 'locate' in different ways. Split Infinity is using the word to mean search and find while SamBridge is using the word to mean indicate a point on a map. This has caused most of the confusion. It is fact that in order to say where an object is only takes 3 points, the x,y and z IF you already have a map laid out with an x,y,z co-ordinate system. Split is wanting to find an object that does not AS YET have such a map but one that needs to be constructed from data. Now, all the data Split Infinity has is some known points, with known positions relative to an unknown position. At this point I need to know what this relative position is to the known points. If you are saying I know the direction AND distance to the unknown object from a point, then I only need ONE point to determine the unknown object's position in relation to the known point. It stands to reason I already know MY position relative to the known object and can plot a course then to the unknown point. If I only know the direction of the unknown object from a known point, then I will need TWO objects to find the unknown object's position. Wherever the lines cross is where the unknown object lies and by using EITHER of the two known positions can direct a course to the unknown object. If I only know the unknown objects distance I will need THREE known objects position relative to the unknown object. This time, instead of drawing a line I must draw a sphere around each of the three known objects. Where all three spheres intersect with each other will be the location of the unknown object, and once more using any of the three known objects location can set a course to the unknown object. Irregardless of which situation is true, after I have found the unknown object's location a map will have to be drawn at which point it WILL be indicated by x,y,z co-ordinates. This map can then use my position, one of the known objects' position or even the newly found unknown object's position as 0,0,0 and I will be able to set course to travel where I want within the boundaries of that map. I hope this clears up what has been a fun read And now......The Larch.