The Paradoxes of the Universe Thread

[Doom_Dragoon]

In this thread, let's discuss paradox's of our known universe.

How you ever thought of what would happen if you could go back in time and change a certain event so that it didn't occur/did occur? Well next time you think about it, think of this.

If one were to travel back in time, and attempted to change an event, then technically haven't they already gone back. What I'm saying is that when the past was the present, the future version of you already came back to the past to change the event, which therefore caused what happened to happen, no? If you don't go back however, then you are stuck in the same predicament. You didn't go back to change the event, therefore that is why it happened the way it did. It's basically an infinity loop that you cannot get out of. A paradox.

[Dark_Soul74]

The only way for time travel to truly work, then, is that then reality would branch off in different directions with different events in each, and everything happening differently.

[Doom_Dragoon]

But then if you traveled in time, you would no longer exist, thusly proving my point.

[Luther-Stark]

Only way i could think of "Time Travelling" Would be to freeze the entire world. We'd all die... but hey, at least time would stop moving.

[Doom_Dragoon]

Freezing the world would only stop time for the people on that planet.

[Fenguin]

And since they're all dead, it wouldn't do anything ;)

[ZeroDarkStar]

I was thinking of this yesterday, as it were.

This is good material. ;)

[T-Dawg]

Zero Degrees Kelvin. There we go. That is a nice paradox I would like to see occur. Not really a paradox.. its just physically impossible? Theoretically it could still hold true though.

[Fenguin]

Speed-of-light travel. Another yummy paradox ;)

[Doom_Dragoon]

Ah yes, here's yet another. Keep in mind these are all from my experiences.

Have you ever thought of just how big the universe is? I mean there has to be a limit right? What if there isn't? Let's say that the world is a library full of books, each book different than the next. Now lets say that we have 26 letters plus periods and commas only, which make 28 useable characters. Each book contains the exact same amount of pages and the same amount of characters. Each page contains a random assortment of books placed randomly on each page.

Now mathematically, there will be some books that tell entire stories, such as Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, etc. Most however, will be nothing but jibberish. Now one should think, if every possible combination is carried out, then eventually you will find a book that is like another, correct? Mathematically it would be 28!, right? Now what if I said that letters can be repeated? Then it would be 28!*27!*... on down the line, correct? Now, looking at it from a normal perspective we can say, "Well that just equals inifinity" The thing is, if you were to carry this number out, you would find that it does equal a real number.

This leads me to my conclusion. If we think of the univers in a normal perspective, we think it has to be infinite, but mathematically, inifinity doesn't exist... yet it does. We have a symbol for it and everything. One may also say the universe is ever expanding. This would lead back to the same conclusion. It would have to hit the maximum expanding point, would it not, or would it?

[Geno]

Here's one hell of a paradox for you...

If Jimmy Cracked corn, and noone cared, why is there a song about him?

That is one hell of a paradox...

Oh, and I always wondered this...

If you had a mirror. Let's say you take that mirror, and somehow molded it into a perfect sphere, with the mirror reflecting side on the INSIDE of the sphere, with no marks anywhere. What would the mirror look like? It reflects stuff, but if it reflected a mirror that reflects a mirror which reflects a mirror... What WOULD it reflect? I mean, think about it... What would there be to reflect? REmember, it's in a sphere that has nothing in it. Just a mirror. Also, there are no lines, cuts, anything in it. Just a mirror on the inside... That's a weird thought, but something to think about...

~Larry "Geno" Meyers

[Doom_Dragoon]

You wouldn't be able to tell unless you were on the inside, but then it would reflect you. Mathematically, it would reflect the opposite side of the sphere. In a logical sense though, it reflects itself.

[Darkeggy]

How did the universe start? People talk about the Big Bang, but what caused the Big Bang to happen?

[Doom_Dragoon]

That's no paradox... tst tsk...

[Crion]

To answer the time travel question, I will try to regurgitate how it was explained to me by a more knowledgable friend. Excuse any errors, or better yet, correct them:

A prominent theory regarding the issue of travelling through time operates primarily off of the point of view that reality is nothing more than the "sum of all possibilities," as quantum mechanics hold it to be. Since we really exist in four dimensions, three spatial (height, width, depth) and one temporal (time), time travel is merely an issue of altering the one dimension that we have, up until now, not been able to alter: time. Now, in a system where reality is the sum of all possibilities, it stands to reason that when one "returns" to a previous time, one's actions will not affect the time he travelled from. He will instead create a whole new set of possibilities through his actions, which alter what he knows to be history. He will create a whole new world, as it were. Thus, there is no point in time travelling for the greater good; the people sending the man back into time would never see him again, and events would continue to go on as they should, according to natural processes. In a way, time travelling under this model is the ultimate in hedonism, a molding of the possibilities around oneself to suit one's needs.

Well, that's how I thought about it, anyhow. <shrug>

How did the universe start? People talk about the Big Bang, but what caused the Big Bang to happen?

Some theories state that every time a black hole pops into existence, a new universe is created...making "universes" really just self-perpetuating systems. Go figure, if it's true.

[Doom_Dragoon]

Well that would mean there would be multiple realities, which again proves my point. If you traveled back in time, you would no longer exist in your original timeline. However, you do bring up a good point.

What happens if time is linear? If you traveled back in time and time is linear, but you can change time as you stated above, what happens if you do go back. The original time line would no longer exist, and a new one would be created. The only person that would be aware of the old timeline would be you though, and if you remember it, shouldn't it still exist...?

Wow, I'm starting to confuse myself...

[Luther-Stark]

If you had a mirror. Let's say you take that mirror, and somehow molded it into a perfect sphere, with the mirror reflecting side on the INSIDE of the sphere, with no marks anywhere. What would the mirror look like? It reflects stuff, but if it reflected a mirror that reflects a mirror which reflects a mirror... What WOULD it reflect? I mean, think about it... What would there be to reflect? REmember, it's in a sphere that has nothing in it. Just a mirror. Also, there are no lines, cuts, anything in it. Just a mirror on the inside... That's a weird thought, but something to think about...

Reflection is based on light. If the sphere was inclosed, and you went inside it.. all you would see would be darkness. If there was light inside it, then you would see light.

[Doom_Dragoon]

Well there you go. I forgot about that... (aside) Shame on me... :(

[Kahuzal]

You would see the colour of the light, then it would fade out soon.

[SiegeTank]

What I never really understood is where this cosmic memory is supposed to be that stores all past events so that we can travel back in time to alter them. Where is the Galactic Mainframe with a few gazillion SCSI discs that store the fact that at point X, Y happened under Z circumstances, so that if person A goes back in time and does B at place C, Y and Z will chance and affect X?

I personally don't think there is such a mainframe.

EDIT: Oh and Doom Dragoon, I think the answer to your paradox about the infinity of the universe is that you failed to take into account that there just might be an unlimited number of options to choose from. Where you limit your alpahabet to 26 characters plus comma and period, the universe has no such limitations and just might have infinite characters (or a finite amount of characters that is in fact so extensive that the amount of possibilities that is the result of them is so staggering that no mortal being could ever see the difference between finity and infinity).

[Twitt]

I can conceive there not being an end to something. Simply put someone on a circular track and tell them to run to the end. I, however, cannot conceive there not being a "beginning". Something that suggestively "always existed".

[Kahuzal]

I personally don't think there is such a mainframe.You're thinking about it in a 3 dimensional sense, which is what a computer is in.

Have you ever read up on the string theory?

Twitt: What are you talking about?

[Doom_Dragoon]

What I never really understood is where this cosmic memory is supposed to be that stores all past events so that we can travel back in time to alter them. Where is the Galactic Mainframe with a few gazillion SCSI discs that store the fact that at point X, Y happened under Z circumstances, so that if person A goes back in time and does B at place C, Y and Z will chance and affect X?

I personally don't think there is such a mainframe.

EDIT: Oh and Doom Dragoon, I think the answer to your paradox about the infinity of the universe is that you failed to take into account that there just might be an unlimited number of options to choose from. Where you limit your alpahabet to 26 characters plus comma and period, the universe has no such limitations and just might have infinite characters (or a finite amount of characters that is in fact so extensive that the amount of possibilities that is the result of them is so staggering that no mortal being could ever see the difference between finity and infinity).Ah yes, but my metaphor was to put it into an easier perspective.

[Kahuzal]

Yeah but your metaphore still allowed for an infite number.

[WeekendLazyness]

Two things:


The only way for time travel to truly work, then, is that then reality would branch off in different directions with different events in each, and everything happening differently.
That's how they explained it in Back to the Future


If you had a mirror. Let's say you take that mirror, and somehow molded it into a perfect sphere, with the mirror reflecting side on the INSIDE of the sphere, with no marks anywhere. What would the mirror look like? It reflects stuff, but if it reflected a mirror that reflects a mirror which reflects a mirror... What WOULD it reflect? I mean, think about it... What would there be to reflect? REmember, it's in a sphere that has nothing in it. Just a mirror. Also, there are no lines, cuts, anything in it. Just a mirror on the inside... That's a weird thought, but something to think about...

~Larry "Geno" Meyers
There would be no light entering the sphere, and therefore, nothing to reflect. It's all black on the inside.

[Fenguin]

What if there is light already inside the sphere? It won't be able to get out because of the mirror.

[OboeGuru]

What if there is light already inside the sphere? It won't be able to get out because of the mirror.
But even a mirror has the large atomic gaps, enough for some photons and such to get through. So in theory, light could be flowing in as well as out.

[Fenguin]

I assumed a perfectly reflective mirror [i.e. all energy thrown at it is reflected back] ;)

[WeekendLazyness]

The light would fade out due to lack of a source. And if there were a source, it would be visible from anywhere inside the sphere.

[OboeGuru]

The light would fade out due to lack of a source. And if there were a source, it would be visible from anywhere inside the sphere.
But you don't know what's inside the sphere, that's the conundrum.

[Fenguin]

Will it? I think you're thinking about conventional mirrors now ;) In this case, the light bounces infinitely around and around the mirror because it's not intercepted by anything ;)
And yes, if there were a source, the whole thing would be very very very bright. ;)

[SiegeTank]

Which of couse goes against laws of thermodynamics. Unless the mirror is places in an absolute vacuum and the mirrors themselves do not absorb even the slightest bit of energy, which I imagine goes against half a dozen laws of physics.

Have you ever read up on the string theory?

In fact I did, but they lost me somewhere halfway. I don't understand what the universe being a set of two-dimensional strings has to do with timetravel anyway... Perhaps you can enlighten me on the subject in a few sentences?

The comparison with a computer mainframe was entirely illustrative. Yet there has to be a memory somewhere, if you want to travel backwards in it. If there isn't a memory that stores all events universe-wide, would it not be impossible to travel back in time because there is nothing to travel back into?

As far as I think, time is just the thing that keeps everything from happening at the same time. Nothing more, and certainly not a dimension you can travel back in at will.

[Galant]

If one were to travel back in time, and attempted to change an event, then technically haven't they already gone back... It's basically an infinity loop that you cannot get out of. A paradox.

That would only be relevant however, if your actions in the past had a significant altering effect upon the future (your pre-travel present). If no such effect was had, then you could end up where you are, in a different future without the need to return to the past, or perhaps with a different need.

No?

G.

[Doom_Dragoon]

Once again, my point has been proven.

[Case_in_point]

I read somewhere that time is defined as a simultaneous change at each point in the universe. Think outside what we humans have created. Time is a word created to describe a concept that was created to help us organize our lives. Whether or not time is actually a dimension is debateable because it's difficult to prove it either way. Let's say that time is not a thing, like a dimension or a plane, but an occurance. If it were possible to travel back in time, you would need enough enery to set everything in the universe back to the way it was in the past, which is near inconcievable to us at this point.

Here's a paradox though. Sayings like, all generalizations are false, or nothing is set in stone. These imply that nothing is absolute, yet they contradict themselves because they would have to be an absolute in order to be true. So can they be true, or can they exist only by saying that they are an exception to the rule.

[SiegeTank]

"The only rule is that there are no rules".

[Doom_Dragoon]

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

[TranquilNightElf]

Ok I joined this thing pretty late. (My Bad)
So i thought I'd just give my views on Time and Time Travel.

Time According to Stephen Hawking research on Einstein is alterable by

gravity .
More gravity should mean slower time.(relative to anyone else looking from

an outside field of reference)

Time is indeed a sum of all possiblilites.
This has been indicated by the Friedmann's Sum of histories model.
A Young's experiment was conducted.
One Electron was sent through one slot on a carboard with two slots.The

resultant incident pattern of the electron which was sent through the slot

was a wave which was only possible if another electron had passed through

the other slot and interfered with the first electron.The answer to this

was suggessted as the same electron passed throught the two slots at the

same time!


Time Travel into the future is theoretically possible and Einstein has

related it to the velocity of a body.
The faster a body moves the slower time goes for it.
Imagine if you will in a spaceship that travels at the speed of light.
One year for you on that space ship could be decades for everone else.
An experiment conducted with two atomic clockes perfectly synchronized

proved this to an extent. IE one was put on a fast moving plane and one was

on the ground.The Plane was flown for 3 hours and the Plane atomic clock

gained a microsecond or so.
However One thing that prevents us from effectively using this is the

inablility to travel at the spped of light (which is the source of another

paradox that any object having that speed would hae zero length ..then what

of the parsecs that are supposed to travel at 333.33 times speed of light)
Say there was a way to travel at the speed of light and hence "go" into the

future.There is a way to linlk the two timelines..That is through

wormholes...somehting regarding the cassie effect .Can't remember much but

it involved charging the space between two plates with the energy required

to create a star. That would induce a wormhole formation connecting the two

plate.
One plate would be on the space ship and the other would be on earth.The

wormhole would not be broken and there you would hae a link to the "future"
Of course you would need extic matter to travel via the wormhole(so

scientist say).

Time Travel to the past.
One way is ...there are lots of energy strand floating around the universe

from the big bang.Space around these strands is like curved like a cone.
Now light tends to travel in a straight line.so it would tend to into the

cone then out.
But if you cold travel very fast on the periphree of the cone at light

speed you wouldbe travelling a distance lesser distance than light .Hence

you should complete the circle and get back to your starting position

before light that started from that position left.
In essence you could "see yourself" getting ready to move.

Another way to go back in time is to have a cylinder like object move

faster and faster and then it would rip a hole or summin but I'm not sure

how this one is supposed to work.


Ok I'm sure you guys have heard of the Grandfather paradox.
If you go back in time and kill your grandad then he wouldn't be able to

have you father as his son and you father wouldn't be able to have you as a

son so you wouldn't be able to go back in the first place.
the reasoning given for this is the "Cosmic Constant" that would cause

circumstances that would prevent you to change anything.

Also if you go back into the past and if you change something then only the

person who went back would be aware of the change. as to everyone else in

the present it would have already happened.


But..If time travel into the past were possible then why haven;t we seen

any time travellers from the future?...
Many say it is beacause of the Keplar Multiverse concept.
When you go back in time, you can't do that inyou own universe.
And I think Doom_Dragoon, Crion, Dark_Soul74 have talked about this.
If you go back in time you'de be in a different univers/reality.One that you might create with your timetravelling into the past.
Imagine a balloon with several pinched parts...Blowing into the balloon

would cause all those parts to inflate but all the pinched parts would be

independant from each other and only linked with the small neck of the

pinch.(which in our universe would be blackholes)/

Oh and Darkeggy, I'll go you one better.
When the universe was in the shape of a point , just before the big bang...then what was it in?...it had to be "in" something as we are "in" the unverse.

OH and a final note off the top of my head.
It is generally accepted that the unverse is expanding and that one time or the other the gravitational force woul get stronger and then it wold start to collapse.
It is believed that when that happens everything will go backwards including time.IE evens will infact take place backwords.
Disorder will change into order.

Whew that was a lot.. ..
Sorry if my ideas have ben repeated in some form or the other.

[Doom_Dragoon]

You really didn't say much of anything there buddy...

[Case_in_point]

You really didn't say much of anything there buddy...

Best envoy ever.

[TranquilNightElf]

You really didn't say much of anything there buddy...

Was just bouncing off ideas I had at the time

How would you have stated it? :confused:

[Doom_Dragoon]

I have no idea what you were trying to say.

[TranquilNightElf]

Hmm.. Yes perhaps i did sorta cram many unrelated stuff in there..can't help it ..this sort of thing gets me so eager.:P

Ok how about this.
They say the universe was one quite a smaller size than it is today ie the "point" form before the bigbang.
I think it was around 100 lightyears in diameter.
Question is where would this "ball" be located?

[GrassDragon]

if it were the universe wouldnt it be the only thing that existed? Therefore it isnt in anything and is not "located" in a describable position, because nothing else even exists anywhere else to use as a reference.

Another thing i just thought of... In one of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game books, he describes (or a character does anyway) a theory about how the universe has no mass at all, that it is the size of a geometric point. The only reason the universe seems to be expanding is that the speed of light is slowing down. Everything seems to be getting farther and farther away because the speed of light, and subsequently everything else because speeds are based relative to that of light, is decreasing.

I know that is neither a paradox nor does it have much to do with what we are talking about, but i thought it was interesting so... there.

[Doom_Dragoon]

Who's to say there aren't multiple universes? Remember the end of the movie Men In Black? That puts it in perspective quite nicely.

[TranquilNightElf]

Yes it did :)..Just what I was thinking about.But scientist have gone back to only being able to describe a few seconds after the big bang leave alone what happend before it.


The only reason the universe seems to be expanding is that the speed of light is slowing down.

But then light speed has been measured by instruments and has been found to be exactly the same.

[Kahuzal]

Question is where would this "ball" be located?It was not a big "ball" of mass... or energy for that matter.

In the sense that you are thinking, the total universes gravity confined to one singel gravity well, would create such a black hole that nothing could escape...

The big bang did not have one singel point of origin. Sicne outside of the universe's spacial dimentions, there are none, we are located at the point (0,0,0,0,0 ...) this includes the distance between you and me, and the time i'm writing this and the time you're reading this, it's at exactly 0. This "singularity" allows for us to be in anywhere outside, and in one specific spot inside.

This is why the big bang happened everywhere, it was first energy and then pased into matter as more room gained.. and then it became denser and denser... the energy for just one atom is insanely large alone.

[TranquilNightElf]

The big bang did not have one singel point of origin. Sicne outside of the universe's spacial dimentions, there are none, we are located at the point (0,0,0,0,0 ...) this includes the distance between you and me, and the time i'm writing this and the time you're reading this, it's at exactly 0. This "singularity" allows for us to be in anywhere outside, and in one specific spot inside.


But then you are still talking about physical coordinates,distances and time etc that exist as we know them.that have a bearing in our spacetime.Scientists haven't been able to apply our physics to the big bang cause evry law "breaks down"

What about dimensions outside of our reality, that we haven't considered.

In the sense that you are thinking, the total universes gravity confined to one singel gravity well, would create such a black hole that nothing could escape...


that is how the universe is describe roughly before the big bang...like a giant black hole....though when i say giant i mean for us..
This gave rise to the theory that blackholes may be links to other universes. or may be universes inside of themselves.

[OboeGuru]

Who's to say there aren't multiple universes? Remember the end of the movie Men In Black? That puts it in perspective quite nicely.
Current astrophysical theory states that the Big Bang allows for the generation of multiple universes, because that model more accurately fits the obervations of our universe in relation to modern theorems.

[Kahuzal]

What about dimensions outside of our reality, that we haven't considered.Thats the point of being outside a universe, there are no dimentions that can hold a vector or scalar quantity.

[IceFlare]

Dont know if its been mentioned yet but here goes.
If the universe is theorized to have started @ a single point, what did the 'world' look like before that occurred? Could it be white/black? Why? I doubt it because for their to be light, there had to be a source, there was no source. It could possibly be some color we have never seen before. Or how about this? Parallel universes? Do they exist? How do we find out. Assuming there were, we would probably have to travel to edges of our own universe and then jump out and move into the other. Thats impossible by our standards. Space travel is still too slow. Even if we could travel @ light speed, it would still probably take centuries or more to reach halfway.

[Battlecruiser]

wow there are so many questions and paradoxes but I will try to answer them all though I probably will get them all wrong.

first we can't time travel and we cannot travel at light speed as long as we have length,width, and height so who cares and anyway I think it is impossible to travel back in time.

The light would fade out due to lack of a source. And if there were a source, it would be visible from anywhere inside the sphere.

no if the light was already in the sphere-mirror thingy then it would have no way of getting out as long as the mirror is a PERFECT mirror and reflects all light that hits it. wait a second... In my class we learnt that the earth recieves sunlight from the sun during daytime and during night time that energy is converted to lower frequencies (infrared waves) so shouldn't the same thing happen to a circular mirror? because it will bounce the light for a while but slowly that light energy will be transferred into heat energy. right? so that means weekend lazyness is right.

if it were the universe wouldnt it be the only thing that existed? Therefore it isnt in anything and is not "located" in a describable position, because nothing else even exists anywhere else to use as a reference.

Another thing i just thought of... In one of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game books, he describes (or a character does anyway) a theory about how the universe has no mass at all, that it is the size of a geometric point. The only reason the universe seems to be expanding is that the speed of light is slowing down. Everything seems to be getting farther and farther away because the speed of light, and subsequently everything else because speeds are based relative to that of light, is decreasing.

I know that is neither a paradox nor does it have much to do with what we are talking about, but i thought it was interesting so... there.
yeah that has nothing really to do with what we are talking about and is totally wrong. the speed of light is a constant and the letter symbolizing the speed of light in a vacuum is C. ALso how can the universe have NO mass? Even if I was the only thing in the univese, the universe would have mass because I have mass and therefore the universe has mass. I think your author(Orson Scott) was just trying to be smart and that character must be a retard or something.

Dont know if its been mentioned yet but here goes.
If the universe is theorized to have started @ a single point, what did the 'world' look like before that occurred? Could it be white/black? Why? I doubt it because for their to be light, there had to be a source, there was no source. It could possibly be some color we have never seen before. Or how about this? Parallel universes? Do they exist? How do we find out. Assuming there were, we would probably have to travel to edges of our own universe and then jump out and move into the other. Thats impossible by our standards. Space travel is still too slow. Even if we could travel @ light speed, it would still probably take centuries or more to reach halfway.

Ok, first, when the universe had started at a single point the earth was not created yet. Second there would be no light therefore the color would be black. Third how do we determine where the edge of our universe is? what would happen when you reached the end of our universe? That is why I don't think there is an edge to our universe. I think our universe is never-ending. Fourth what do you mean by "jump" to the parralel universe? Do you mean jump in the literal way or what? Fifth there is no halfway of our universe because there is no end to our universe.

I read somewhere that time is defined as a simultaneous change at each point in the universe. Think outside what we humans have created. Time is a word created to describe a concept that was created to help us organize our lives. Whether or not time is actually a dimension is debateable because it's difficult to prove it either way. Let's say that time is not a thing, like a dimension or a plane, but an occurance. If it were possible to travel back in time, you would need enough enery to set everything in the universe back to the way it was in the past, which is near inconcievable to us at this point.

Here's a paradox though. Sayings like, all generalizations are false, or nothing is set in stone. These imply that nothing is absolute, yet they contradict themselves because they would have to be an absolute in order to be true. So can they be true, or can they exist only by saying that they are an exception to the rule.

Actually making everything seem like what is was before is not going to the past because while you are using your energy to make everything seem like it was before you are using up time and time is still going on so that means time travel to the past is impossible. And when you think about it you are always traveling to the future just not in years but at the rate time is always moving at. The paradox in your second statement is not really a paradox. It is just one of those retarded things humans say because humans are just like that. But yeah those proverbs or whatever they are, are condradicting themselves.

[TranquilNightElf]

Travelling at the speed of light is possible, it's just that everything will get reduced to a single point .
Also they have found a new particle(and this was some time ago) that is supposed to have the speed of 333.33times the speed of light (!!)
I think it was called a parsec.

Also, you do not know if there were any light source at that time.Keep in mind all that matter all compressed into a single point would generato tons of heat and light and an explosion to boot (oh wait the explosion did happen ;) )
That reminds me of a funny little strip of Calvin and Hobbes,
Calvin was thinking about the boring names scientist give everything and how there was so much money to be made by marketing this sort of stuff..for example the name "Big Bang" was very boring and he suggested something like "The Horrendous Space Kablooie!!"..lol..:)


Anyhow back to the topic

When (ie if you could) you go back in time...time is for you going forward yes...but the whole point of time travel is to change your time coordinates with respect to everyone elses, so even if time goes forward for you while you are time jumping, you would be back in time relative to everything else.

[Fenguin]

Travelling at the speed of light is possible, it's just that everything will get reduced to a single point .
Also they have found a new particle(and this was some time ago) that is supposed to have the speed of 333.33times the speed of light (!!)
I think it was called a parsec.

Also, you do not know if there were any light source at that time.Keep in mind all that matter all compressed into a single point would generato tons of heat and light and an explosion to boot (oh wait the explosion did happen ;) )
That reminds me of a funny little strip of Calvin and Hobbes,
Calvin was thinking about the boring names scientist give everything and how there was so much money to be made by marketing this sort of stuff..for example the name "Big Bang" was very boring and he suggested something like "The Horrendous Space Kablooie!!"..lol..:)


Anyhow back to the topic

When (ie if you could) you go back in time...time is for you going forward yes...but the whole point of time travel is to change your time coordinates with respect to everyone elses, so even if time goes forward for you while you are time jumping, you would be back in time relative to everything else.

I think parsecs are a measure of distance ;) It equals 3.26 light years.

Also, normal matter [as we know it now] can't travel at the speed of light. Since E=mc², energy is proportional to mass. Then, as more energy is used to move the object, the more mass it will have. However, when the object gets close to the speed of light, the mass will rise even faster. When it reaches the speed of light, the mass would be infinite, and energy to move it would also be infinite.
However, with the new "everything and its baby sister are actually waves and particles" theory, that argument might be thrown out. :)

yeah that has nothing really to do with what we are talking about and is totally wrong. the speed of light is a constant and the letter symbolizing the speed of light in a vacuum is C. ALso how can the universe have NO mass? Even if I was the only thing in the univese, the universe would have mass because I have mass and therefore the universe has mass. I think your author(Orson Scott) was just trying to be smart and that character must be a retard or something.

Are you sure you have mass? If the universe was infinitely small, then everything in it would be infinitely small, and have infinitely small mass. But since everything has infinitely small mass, then everything compared to other stuff would have mass [since they all have about the same amount of mass]. By the way, there's different sizes of infinities;.
Look at the set of integers. There are infinity integers, of course.
Then look at the set of real numbers. There are infinity as well. But here's something: for every ONE integer, there's INFINITY real numbers. Therefore, it's logical to say that there are more real numbers than integers, even though both are infinity. Mathematicians call these different sizes of infinities Aleph-null, Aleph-one, etc.
So since there are so many big infinities, there are also so many small infinities. So we have different masses, even though we're all infinitely small.
So the universe might just be one-dimensional in a bigger two-dimensional universe-plane. :D

[TranquilNightElf]

I think parsecs are a measure of distance ;) It equals 3.26 light years.

Hmm...yes then the particle must have been called something else.



Are you sure you have mass? If the universe was infinitely small, then everything in it would be infinitely small, and have infinitely small mass. But since everything has infinitely small mass, then everything compared to other stuff would have mass [since they all have about the same amount of mass]. By the way, there's different sizes of infinities;.So since there are so many big infinities, there are also so many small infinities. So we have different masses, even though we're all infinitely small.
So the universe might just be one-dimensional in a bigger two-dimensional universe-plane. :D

Precisely :) ....some thoerize the universe is located inside a "void" sort of plane..
It's like we are sooo tiny ...that we are oblivious to any larger worlds around us.
Like the whole universe contained from what may look like from an "outside" perspective.. an atom

[Battlecruiser]

Are you sure you have mass? If the universe was infinitely small, then everything in it would be infinitely small, and have infinitely small mass. But since everything has infinitely small mass, then everything compared to other stuff would have mass [since they all have about the same amount of mass]. By the way, there's different sizes of infinities;.
Look at the set of integers. There are infinity integers, of course.
Then look at the set of real numbers. There are infinity as well. But here's something: for every ONE integer, there's INFINITY real numbers. Therefore, it's logical to say that there are more real numbers than integers, even though both are infinity. Mathematicians call these different sizes of infinities Aleph-null, Aleph-one, etc.
So since there are so many big infinities, there are also so many small infinities. So we have different masses, even though we're all infinitely small.
So the universe might just be one-dimensional in a bigger two-dimensional universe-plane. :D[/QUOTE]

But I know I have mass. I can measure it for you. Are you talking about our universe or something else? I am not sure. And I knew the infinity numbers things but how does that apply to this. and can someone tell me how to quote specific parts of what another person wrote(like not having to quote the whole thing)?

[Fenguin]

no if the light was already in the sphere-mirror thingy then it would have no way of getting out as long as the mirror is a PERFECT mirror and reflects all light that hits it. wait a second... In my class we learnt that the earth recieves sunlight from the sun during daytime and during night time that energy is converted to lower frequencies (infrared waves) so shouldn't the same thing happen to a circular mirror? because it will bounce the light for a while but slowly that light energy will be transferred into heat energy. right? so that means weekend lazyness is right.
That's assuming light is made up of only particles. If the particle-wave theory is true, the light will never run out, since the wave energy won't get converted into heat energy [since there's no material "collision"].


yeah that has nothing really to do with what we are talking about and is totally wrong. the speed of light is a constant and the letter symbolizing the speed of light in a vacuum is C.
The speed of light is variable. :) It is affected by gravity, since part of it is particles. ;)


Third how do we determine where the edge of our universe is? what would happen when you reached the end of our universe? That is why I don't think there is an edge to our universe. I think our universe is never-ending. Fourth what do you mean by "jump" to the parralel universe? Do you mean jump in the literal way or what? Fifth there is no halfway of our universe because there is no end to our universe.
Just because we don't know what's beyond the universe doesn't mean that there's nothing beyond it. ;)



EDIT
But I know I have mass. I can measure it for you. Are you talking about our universe or something else? I am not sure. And I knew the infinity numbers things but how does that apply to this. and can someone tell me how to quote specific parts of what another person wrote(like not having to quote the whole thing)?
You don't have absolute mass though. Your mass is only relative to a scale that we use. For all practical purposes, all the masses on the scale [and the masses of this universe] could be infinitely small relative to something else, and you wouldn't know.

[Battlecruiser]

The speed of light is variable. It is affected by gravity, since part of it is particles.
yeah that is why I said the speed of light IN A VACUUM is a constant. I remember they did some experiment with light and jupiter in between the light and earth. I think the light was coming from a star and they showed that the jupiter's gravity had an influence on the light.

Just because we don't know what's beyond the universe doesn't mean that there's nothing beyond it. Yeah but we can just consider what is outside our universe to be part of our universe unless there is a clear boundary.

Fenguin or someone can you tell me how to quote parts of a person's writing and give them credit for it? Because if you look at the quotes above you can see I didn't do it right.

[Fenguin]

.
yeah that is why I said the speed of light IN A VACUUM is a constant. I remember they did some experiment with light and jupiter in between the light and earth. I think the light was coming from a star and they showed that the jupiter's gravity had an influence on the light.

Yeah but we can just consider what is outside our universe to be part of our universe unless there is a clear boundary.

There can still be gravity in a vacuum ;)
And there might be a clear boundary. We just haven't found it yet.

edit: quoting other people: click "Quote" on their post, and it'll quote it. Then trim the person's quote as needed. ;)

[Battlecruiser]

There can still be gravity in a vacuum MAN you are smart. I forgot about that. yeah your right.

You don't have absolute mass though. Your mass is only relative to a scale that we use. For all practical purposes, all the masses on the scale [and the masses of this universe] could be infinitely small relative to something else, and you wouldn't know but there would still be some mass whether thats .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000001% mass in the universe that is still mass and that means that the univese has mass

ok thanks for telling me how to quote

[Semi]

but there would still be some mass whether thats .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000001% mass in the universe that is still mass and that means that the univese has mass


Not having absolute mass doesnt mean not having any mass. It just means the mass isnt definite and its just a number to compare the mass with other objects.

[GrassDragon]

Just because we don't know what's beyond the universe doesn't mean that there's nothing beyond it.

true dat. saying the universe has an edge is like saying that because we cant see time as a dimension like we can see left and right, that it doesnt exist.

[Fenguin]

It's also like saying that if you're in a room with no windows, then there's nothing outside of it because you can't see outside. :D Reminds me of that froggy in the well who said "hey cool, all of the world outside is that circle of light above me!" ;)

[Semi]

There was something in a hawkings book or something with a guy in flatland that couldnt see in the 3rd dimension. He couldnt eat cuz a digestive tract would cut him in half. I scoff at him :D

Omg, fenguin, you did not just allude to a chinese idiom :eek:

[Fenguin]

He could eat, as long as he pooped it back out with his mouth :D
And I'm not sure where that idiom came from.

[Battlecruiser]

It's also like saying that if you're in a room with no windows, then there's nothing outside of it because you can't see outside. :D Reminds me of that froggy in the well who said "hey cool, all of the world outside is that circle of light above me!" ;)

But then again there is also the possibility that there is nothing outside the room with no windows. That is why we really can't say anything about what is outside our universe. We can't prove if there is something outside our universe and we can't prove if there is nothing outside our universe.
Also people consider the universe as something that hold EVERYTHING IN IT. So that means we can consider anything out of our universe as part of our universe.

[TranquilNightElf]

We could try to break down the wall...question is how do we do that?

[Battlecruiser]

We could try to break down the wall...question is how do we do that?

you do know that we weren't talking literally right?

[Fenguin]

I thought I was. There might be some sort of divider/wall thingie between the universe-as-we-know-it and whatever's outside.

[Battlecruiser]

so your saying there is a wall that says "this is the end of your universe, past this is another universe"?

[TranquilNightElf]

you do know that we weren't talking literally right?

Um......yeah..I was using a metaphor there too :rolleyes:


And according to theories...if say there was a point in space that you would start out going to the left.If you kept on and on and on...you would eventually be coming from the right side of the point.
I think then the farthest way from the point would be halfway from the point.
Perhaps the boundary would be at the point you end up moving towards the point instead of away from it.

[Fenguin]

so your saying there is a wall that says "this is the end of your universe, past this is another universe"?
There might be. If the universe is finite, then there is.
I hope you're not taking "wall" to mean "something hard with a sign on it". The wall could just be like a bubble wall, for all we know. Or it could not exist at all. :)

[Battlecruiser]

There might be. If the universe is finite, then there is.
I hope you're not taking "wall" to mean "something hard with a sign on it". The wall could just be like a bubble wall, for all we know. Or it could not exist at all. :)

yeah I was joking but who said the universe was finite

[Battlecruiser]

Um......yeah..I was using a metaphor there too :rolleyes:


And according to theories...if say there was a point in space that you would start out going to the left.If you kept on and on and on...you would eventually be coming from the right side of the point.
I think then the farthest way from the point would be halfway from the point.
Perhaps the boundary would be at the point you end up moving towards the point instead of away from it.

what theory would that be. sounds like one of those games where you are a triangle and when you go to the left you appear on the left. I think the game was on one of the hummer comercials. it was one of those 2d games

[Fenguin]

Hey, it works on the Earth too. :)

[Semi]

what theory would that be. sounds like one of those games where you are a triangle and when you go to the left you appear on the left. I think the game was on one of the hummer comercials. it was one of those 2d games
Theres theories that say that the 3 dimensions we see are not perfectly straight but are rather really really big circles. Most theories, however, say that the other 7 dimensions are curled up tight (think Calabi-Yau) and the 3 are straight (plus time).

[Battlecruiser]

Theres theories that say that the 3 dimensions we see are not perfectly straight but are rather really really big circles. Most theories, however, say that the other 7 dimensions are curled up tight (think Calabi-Yau) and the 3 are straight (plus time).

those never mentioned right and finding yourself in the left side

[Semi]

Pretend that the entire x dimension is a circle with a diameter of one meter. If an ant was starting at some point and walked in a direction for the entire circumference, it would end up on the opposite side of the point where he started. Now just magnify that a crapload of times. Though probably impossible, if the dimension were a circle, one could walk "straight" in one direction and end up back where u started.

Same with left/right, but who wants to side-shuffle? I sure get tired of that from tennis ;)

[Battlecruiser]

Pretend that the entire x dimension is a circle with a diameter of one meter. If an ant was starting at some point and walked in a direction for the entire circumference, it would end up on the opposite side of the point where he started. Now just magnify that a crapload of times. Though probably impossible, if the dimension were a circle, one could walk "straight" in one direction and end up back where u started.

Same with left/right, but who wants to side-shuffle? I sure get tired of that from tennis :)

yeah but it isn't true for our universe. Atleast I think so

[Semi]

yeah but it isn't true for our universe. Atleast I think so
Well yea, I dont think so either, but its still be proposed somewhere or another.

It is generaly accepted (among string theorists) that dimensions 5-10 are curled up in circles, but instead of being really big, they are really small. However, there is also a theory that the dimensions could also be inverse'd (that is, a really small dimension becomes enormous), so that limits the minimum sizes to about the planck constant or whatever it was called. Im kind of going off topic, so ill just leave it at this: If those small circular dimensions exist and the symmetry theory is right, large circular dimensions could also exist.

[TranquilNightElf]

a little off topic but speaking of dimensions really small..scientist theorize that there are many more dimensios than just 10 or 12.
Imagine if you will that space is like an orange skin.From a distance it would appear quite smooth with only like a few creases visible, but on a closer level (akin to the quantum level for space time investigations) there are a multitude of creases visible..same way with dimensions.


And I think the theory was propsed because the arhitecture of the universe was thought to be (and probably still is) like a giant sphere closed on itself.And space time would be its surface. So walking on that circular surface you would get back to where you were starting form.

[Fenguin]

Some examples of high-dimensional stuff: 26-dimensional string theory, 27-dimensional m-theory, 28-dimensional f-theory :D
Yup, those numbers get up there pretty fast ;)

[Doom_Dragoon]

Mind explaining those Fengy? I seem to have never heard of them...

[Fenguin]

They're basically hypotheses that may show what happens with parallel universes. A p-Branes is basically a sheet with a universe on it. Then, when you put two p-Branes close together, M-Theory explains the effects on time between them, and F-Theory explains the effects on space between them.
I have absolutely no clue when they chose 26, 27, and 28. Crazy theoretical physicists. >.<

[Doom_Dragoon]

Ah, I get it.

[Semi]

Whoa...since when is m-Theory 27 o.O

I kept thinking it was 11 for some reason... (blame Nova on pbs for its highly elementary explanations)

[Fenguin]

Perhaps it is 11. But why 11? 27 sounds way cooler. While we're talking about weird dimensions, I declare a new dimension: 4643-dimensional q-theory. :D

[GrassDragon]

how about the 42-dimensional r-theory?

but on topic... wait what is the topic currently? was away for a day or two and im already lost. this is why i should just ditch that whole life thing and live here on the boards.

[TranquilNightElf]

Word ;)

[Semi]

I forgot why but we began discussing non-linear dimensions and then went tangentially to the high-dimensional string theories. So thats where we are now. Theres not much to discuss, though, cuz most of us are unknowledgeable in the field of string theory (myself included).

Any suggestions on further discussion that wont be a bunch of assumptions?

[Battlecruiser]

[QUOTE=Semi] Theres not much to discuss, though, cuz most of us are unknowledgeable in the field of string theory (myself included).
QUOTE]

I thought so! I was wondering if it is possible for anyone other than a physicist to understand those string theories

[Fenguin]

Let's talk about whether the universe will expand forever or collapse in on itself, making a Big Crunch. :)

[Battlecruiser]

Let's talk about whether the universe will expand forever or collapse in on itself, making a Big Crunch. :)

sure. I personally think that the universe will expand forever but I am not too sure so any proof that you tell me thatI am wrong will change my mind.

[TranquilNightElf]

Suppose there is a big crunch....would time be also reversed?....according to Hawking...time would be reversed and things would happen backwards.....literally.

[GrassDragon]

what would be the reason for it to stop expanding? seems to me that the energy thats making it expand would just keep making it expand.

[Fenguin]

What if the Universe grows in mass slower than it expands? [Or increases density over time?] Then, one day, the internal gravitational pull will pull the Universe back together. ;)

[Battlecruiser]

Suppose there is a big crunch....would time be also reversed?....according to Hawking...time would be reversed and things would happen backwards.....literally.

so it would be like a replay? what would happen to any humans living if that occured? so time would be going backwards and they would just be living their lives? An dif it is like a replay at onepoint they could see them selves in the replay. that means there would be 2 of each person.

[Battlecruiser]

What if the Universe grows in mass slower than it expands? [Or increases density over time?] Then, one day, the internal gravitational pull will pull the Universe back together. ;)

the part I don't understand about that is how can the gravity pull the everything back together if it can't do so right now. I mean as each second passes the universe is spreading out more and more so that means the gravitational pull is becoming less and less. right?

[Fenguin]

But new stuffs are forming in the spaces. If too much new stuff forms, their gravity may pull the universe together.

[Battlecruiser]

But new stuffs are forming in the spaces. If too much new stuff forms, their gravity may pull the universe together.

stuff? if by stuff you mean matter then that is not possible. Matter may not be created nor destroyed. Don't know why I remember that but I think that is true.

[Fenguin]

Forming out of nebula, of course.

EDIT: If a particle/antiparticle pair goes too close to a black hole, the antiparticle might get sucked in, leaving just the particle to do stuff. So then there's one more particle [relative to antiparticles] in the universe.

[Battlecruiser]

but that matter was already there. so it wouldn't make a impact on gravity.

[Battlecruiser]

Forming out of nebula, of course.

EDIT: If a particle/antiparticle pair goes too close to a black hole, the antiparticle might get sucked in, leaving just the particle to do stuff. So then there's one more particle [relative to antiparticles] in the universe.

I don't know why but I think of black holes as the size of the moon except that they have such a great gravity that light cannot leave. That is why black holes seem black. light cannot escape it and because we see object by light either reflected from it or refracted and the black hole iinstead holds that light in and most probably absorbs the light. I never thought of a black hole as a real hole. I thought it was made of matter and was the size of the moon or something

[Fenguin]

Some black holes are singularities. Singularities are points in space-time.



the part I don't understand about that is how can the gravity pull the everything back together if it can't do so right now. I mean as each second passes the universe is spreading out more and more so that means the gravitational pull is becoming less and less. right?
Haha, back to this statement.
But the gravitational pull still exists. The expansion might be slowing down due to gravity, and it might stop one day, and start imploding.

[Battlecruiser]

Some black holes are singularities. Singularities are points in space-time.


some are but are all?
Haha, back to this statement.
But the gravitational pull still exists. The expansion might be slowing down due to gravity, and it might stop one day, and start imploding.
I thought the rate of expansion was increasing. Is there any proof to back this up or back the idea that the rate of expansion is decreasing?

[Semi]

Why exactly would it go backwards in time? Why wouldnt the universe keep going normally, just imploding instead of expanding?

And about the antiparticle-particle thing: Why would there be more particles formed? Another antiparticle-particle pair could have the particle sucked in, and the antiparticle would combine with the first pair's particle, thus leading to a net gain of nothing.

[Fenguin]

some are but are all?

I thought the rate of expansion was increasing. Is there any proof to back this up or back the idea that the rate of expansion is decreasing?
Some are semi-black holes, i.e. sucks stuff in, but doesn't have enough density to poke a hole [singularity].
No one knows if the rate of expansion is increasing or decreasing or staying constant. That's why there are two viable ways for the universe to end up.



EDIT:
And about the antiparticle-particle thing: Why would there be more particles formed? Another antiparticle-particle pair could have the particle sucked in, and the antiparticle would combine with the first pair's particle, thus leading to a net gain of nothing.
Physicists theorize that space [the Dark Matter] is made up of lots and lots of pairs of particles and antiparticles. They are created and then annihilate with each other.
But why does there seem to be way more particles than antiparticles in the Universe? If they exist in pairs, why are there more particles?
Because of black holes. The energy of the particle will be positive; the energy of the antiparticle will be negative. In addition, the antiparticle can't possibly live long, since real particles always have positive energy.
When a real particle is close to a black hole, it has less energy than if it were far away, since it needs more energy to be pulled away from the black hole. For this reason, near a black hole, even real particles might have negative energy.
Then, all the negative-energy particles [antiparticles + weak real particles] go in the black hole, since they don't have enough energy to escape. So the only particles that escape are the positive-energy particles, the real particles. ;)

[Battlecruiser]

Why exactly would it go backwards in time? Why wouldnt the universe keep going normally, just imploding instead of expanding?
exactly what I was wondering

[Fenguin]

Why exactly would it go backwards in time? Why wouldnt the universe keep going normally, just imploding instead of expanding?
I don't think space-time will be affected much by the Big Crunch [and shrinking of the universe]. It'll just shrink a bit, IMO.

[TranquilNightElf]

But then if all your dimensions are going in reverse shouldn;t your time dimensions would also go in reverse?...If time is indeed embedded into the fabric of space then space time shrikning should also affect the dimension of time.
And when Hawking said backward he said it in the sense if you see a coffe cup fall down and break.,...then in backward time the broken pieces would pick up and rejoin themselves and set themselves on the table again.

[GrassDragon]

but the dimensions themselves arent being reversed, the universe is just shrinking. i dont think time would be affected. and if it was, we would be none the wiser. time would slow down as the universe stopped expanding and then as it started collapsing time would run backwards and we would just think the universe ended at the latest time the universe was expanding.

[Semi]

We are moving along the time axis, so the size of it shouldnt really affect the direction we go (unless there is an end to it, which seems improbable).

[Battlecruiser]

But then if all your dimensions are going in reverse shouldn;t your time dimensions would also go in reverse?...If time is indeed embedded into the fabric of space then space time shrikning should also affect the dimension of time.
And when Hawking said backward he said it in the sense if you see a coffe cup fall down and break.,...then in backward time the broken pieces would pick up and rejoin themselves and set themselves on the table again.

maybe the big crunch is a physical reverse. not ae reverse. also think what it would feel like if you were living during the big crunch. with what you said that would not be possible because there would be two worlds in one place. one a past world and one a present one. that is not possible.

[GrassDragon]

but if time were to go in reverse, it would be just like it is now only everything happens in backwards order. right now there is only one world here in this physical space, and if time were to go backward it would be the same.

[Battlecruiser]

but if time were to go in reverse, it would be just like it is now only everything happens in backwards order. right now there is only one world here in this physical space, and if time were to go backward it would be the same.

so if there was only one world and time was going backwards (which would never happen anyway) then what would a person living on the earth experience? would he see people who already died coming back alive and going in backward motion? what would happen to the man? the man also cannot think any more becuase in the past his mind never knew abou the future so as he is going back in time he is losing information. That would never ever happen so this whole going in reverse time thing is wrong in my opinion.

[Semi]

Thinking backwards is just weird. You arrive at the answer before you learn the question. I dont think that would happen. Prolly just collapse, not really reversal.

Perhaps the time dimension is not crunched.

[Battlecruiser]

Thinking backwards is just weird. You arrive at the answer before you learn the question. I dont think that would happen. Prolly just collapse, not really reversal.

Perhaps the time dimension is not crunched.

yeah. I agree

[Fenguin]

If the universe had "borders", I do not think they would shrink inward if gravity pulls all the stuff together. This is because when the universe is expanding, it pushes against the border, making it expand. However, when the universe shrinks, there's nothing pulling against the border.

Therefore, since space-time's size is based on the border, then space-time will not shrink when the universe collapses. So time won't go backwards.

If space-time is infinite, then time won't go backwards either, since time is also infinite so it is not affected by the objects on it.

[Battlecruiser]

If the universe had "borders", I do not think they would shrink inward if gravity pulls all the stuff together. This is because when the universe is expanding, it pushes against the border, making it expand. However, when the universe shrinks, there's nothing pulling against the border.

Therefore, since space-time's size is based on the border, then space-time will not shrink when the universe collapses. So time won't go backwards.

If space-time is infinite, then time won't go backwards either, since time is also infinite so it is not affected by the objects on it.

remember we had a debate about borders and that there is no way to prove if they exist or not? atleast there isn't now. but yes I agree with the part that time will not go backwards.

[Fenguin]

But we know that they either exist or don't. And I touched on both cases. ;) [space-time is infinite means universe is infinite means no borders :p]

[Battlecruiser]

But we know that they either exist or don't. And I touched on both cases. ;) [space-time is infinite means universe is infinite means no borders :p]

ohhhhh ok. i thought that meant something else.

[TranquilNightElf]

What if the big crunch is the universe forever expanding...consider a cirsle drawn on the surface of a sphere....let it hae a forever increasing diameter.(but its lines would be permanently on the sphere)..then the largest size it will ever have is when it's diameter is equal to the sphere's. and the max area enclosed by it would be the area of a hemisphere.
After that though even though it would increase from the original value the total area enclosed inside it would decrease...

[Battlecruiser]

What if the big crunch is the universe forever expanding...consider a cirsle drawn on the surface of a sphere....let it hae a forever increasing diameter.(but its lines would be permanently on the sphere)..then the largest size it will ever have is when it's diameter is equal to the sphere's. and the max area enclosed by it would be the area of a hemisphere.
After that though even though it would increase from the original value the total area enclosed inside it would decrease...

? I understand what you are trying to say but not sure about the second part where it starts of with "After that though even though it".

[TranquilNightElf]

Ok say the circle reaches the circumference of the hemisphere....then if its diameter would continue to increase..it would encroach onto the area of the other hemispshere.....thus while it's area would increase the area it is encroaching upon would decrease and decrease.....one could say that the net area enclosed by that circle would then go on reducing .....or if one argues that the original area on the other side of the circle continues to grow...then consider what happens when the second area reduces to a point......and the whole thing goes on and on and on.....it would be like two universes playing expansion and crunch in a tandem like pattern.

[Doom_Dragoon]

If you were on a spaceship traveling at the speed of light and you turn on your headlights, would they do anything. Answer first in a perspective as if you were in the spaceship, then as if you were observing it from outside.

[hammocksleeper]

If you were on a spaceship traveling at the speed of light and you turn on your headlights, would they do anything. Answer first in a perspective as if you were in the spaceship, then as if you were observing it from outside.
Consider this: If you were on an airplane traveling at the speed of sound, would the sound of the engines be heard, and how so?

The answer to your question is the same, but with light instead of sound. Well let me tell you what happens with the question about sound. As the airplane moves through the air, the engines are constantly emitting noise. This noise travels outward from the source (the engine) at the speed of sound. If the plane is moving at the same speed as the noise being given off, the sound being emitted travels alongside the plane, so to speak. But since sound is constantly given off, as time passes more and more sound is travelling alongside the plane. According to wave theory, these waves are in phase and constructively interfere, increasing the amplitude of the total sound. This buildup of sound is a really loud noise known as "sonic boom." So I'm guessing you would get a huge buildup of light, a "light boom."

[hammocksleeper]

What if the big crunch is the universe forever expanding...consider a cirsle drawn on the surface of a sphere....let it hae a forever increasing diameter.(but its lines would be permanently on the sphere)..then the largest size it will ever have is when it's diameter is equal to the sphere's. and the max area enclosed by it would be the area of a hemisphere.
After that though even though it would increase from the original value the total area enclosed inside it would decrease...
But once the diameter of the circle reaches the circumference of the sphere, the diameter can only get smaller, so it's not still "increasing from the original value," as you say.

[Tranxiety]

Consider this: If you were on an airplane traveling at the speed of sound, would the sound of the engines be heard, and how so?

The answer to your question is the same, but with light instead of sound. Well let me tell you what happens with the question about sound. As the airplane moves through the air, the engines are constantly emitting noise. This noise travels outward from the source (the engine) at the speed of sound. If the plane is moving at the same speed as the noise being given off, the sound being emitted travels alongside the plane, so to speak. But since sound is constantly given off, as time passes more and more sound is travelling alongside the plane. According to wave theory, these waves are in phase and constructively interfere, increasing the amplitude of the total sound. This buildup of sound is a really loud noise known as "sonic boom." So I'm guessing you would get a huge buildup of light, a "light boom." They've made light go faster than the speed of light...well the average speed anyways. It went along with the theory that when it exceeds the speed of light, it appears to exit before it enters, thus if you were to do the same, you would see yourself run in front of you.

[Netrunner]

Here's another thing to ponder about Time Travel what if you went back in time to stop yourself from going back in time, there are one of two possibilities A)A new time line branches off where you have never time traveled but you are still there, resulting in two "yous" in the same place or B)the universe becomes an infinite loop

[Tranxiety]

I would think time travel would be less Jump to a specific time and more watching everything in slow motion, thus the moment u started, you would go back to the moment and nothing would happen. The only other way would be to somehow watch from outside this loop, its really just a way of watching progression as "time" as some of you think doesn't exist. Its just a human metaphorical contruct of change. Anyways there wouldnt be a paradox, things would just change, it would "branch off" except you'd still be going "forward" in time.

[Semi]

Concerning the headlights thing: This is einsteins general relativity (or is it Special relativity o.O I cant remember). Basically it says that the light will do the same thing no matter what. This then implies that if you are moving at the speed of light, time pretty much stops (or at least slows down significantly). Thus, everything would look the same as it would on a normal spaceship.

Note: This is not the same as sound. Mach 1 planes dont stop time :P

[Visions_of_Khas]

All objects are, according to Einstein's theories, moving throgh space time at the speed of light. However, this speed only manifests itself, to us, in light particles- photons. The faster an objects moves through space, the more of its energy of speed through time is diverted to physical movement. Thus, all of the available energy of an object is diverted from its path through time to its physical movement in space. This eliminates the time variable for that object.

So, I would think, when an object is at complete rest (I am not sure, but I think this may be achieved at absolute zero in a null-gravity enironment) all of the energy used for physical movement is put into its speed through time. Of course, we cannot achieve this state through an [conventional] means.

[Ghost213]

Is jesus omnipotent?

because if he was, would he be able to microwave a burrito so hot even he couldnt eat it?
But then he wouldnt be omnipotent because he wouldnt be able to eat the burrito.

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[Ghost213]

My theory on time travel is that each point in time is a different dimension, just the same universe, so to travel time, you would have to create a wormhole.

The consequenses, however hard you try to NOT change things, would be insurmountable, because as Seraph_Knight said, "no matter how hard you try not to change the past, there would still be differences"
My belief is that you would either A) wind up stuck in the new time line you create with no way back or B) if you die in the alterior time line, you dissapear from the regual time line all together.

oh yeah and sorry about my previous post, I kinda was in a joking mood.

[Spartan-II]

Einstein has a theory to help explain time travel, The Theory of Frame Dragging. His theory states that black holes actually drag space and time around them thus distorting the space and time continuam (I thinks thats how its spelled) It also says that if you were to take a ship into the area being dragged that you would travel at the speed of light but not exceed it, even thought to an outsiders view it would seem so. Therefor even with the help of a blackhole, or a quantam singularity, you couldn't travel faster than the speed of light or you would rip a hole in space-time, thus ending the universe.
Or so thats how it was explained to me.

[Kahuzal]

It also says that if you were to take a ship into the area being dragged that you would travel at the speed of light but not exceed it, even thought to an outsiders view it would seem so. There's several things wrong with this here, and this was probably explained to you wrongly.
Firstly, black holes can take in matter faster then the speed of light, we've proved this trough math. Once an object is being pulled at the speed of light, well it has reached the event horizon, we can't see it (which is the problem with observing this), some light is trapped here going at c, and being pulled at c, since c-c=0, therefore it cannot move.
Realistically, everything is being frame-dragged.

Anyway, this really come into relativity (not the theory, but it can be applied).
For example, your motion relative to a car going 90 mph is... 0. Your motion relative to the road is 90 mph, Your motion relative to the center of the earth is greater, your motion relative to an object traveling next to you at the same speed and direction is 0, etc etc ....

So the speed of the object, in relativity to something else, may be faster then the speed of light, therefore, this is debatable as to if it is relative to the frame's time, or observers. That frame may be 10 seconds for every second in the observers. I'd have to re-read the frame dragging theory to see about that destruction of the world, and read up on some new findings to validate it, but I really don't have the time for that, and after I post this I have to finnish building my DC motor for physics class (what an easy 10%).

Anyway, here's somthing I've been thinking about...

Invisibility... some people say it can't be done.

Wave offset by 0 vibrations is called wave A
Wave offset by 1/2 vibration is called wave B

Light travels in waves, waves can be thought of as... oh like waves in an ocean.

Now then, if you take that wave, A, and make it cross with wave B, the two waves cerate what is called destructive interference. This basically means that at this point for the duration of the wave's overlapping, they will have moved all particles into the rest position, meaning there is no disturbance. The waves will continue to disturb particles after they have left each other.

(I'm explaining this because it's important for the next bit).

Lets say light waveA comes towards an object, what happens is the light is returned/reflected in opposite phase (crests become depressions, depressions become crests), as well as the wave length being altered.

In order to have invisibility, we need to have a wave exactly the same, however start off 1/2 a vibration offset from the wave it needs to become destructive with.

This would require a device to become off-set, and need a lot of adjustments, but it's passable to become invisible through technological means.

This is just proof that destructive wave invisibility is possible (and probably easiest).

[BogoJoker]

Wow did this take me forever to read. (Not forever in the infinite definition it is just a phrase.. whatever :P )

This topic is out of my league, or is it!

I did read most of the book "Genius." A biography about Richard Feynman. He was certainly an incrediable person. I can't remember the exact situation but I believe it was a confrontation of two electrons. They acted as if they knew in advance... that they were meant to confront eachother in time. Time was observed to be unusually used by the particles. Let me look it up and post it below:

The theory was a compilation of Wheeler and Feynmen

Quote from the book:
"Like a lighthouse sending its beam both north and south, an electron might shine both forward and backward to the future and the past."

They were referring to: electro magnetic equations (that) worked equally well when the sign of the time quantities were reversed from plus to minus. That could have meant "advanced waves" that were received before they were emitted.

Here is their theory: Does this boggle any of you? Dont worry its a simple website.
http://www.qedcorp.com/book/tsld018.htm

-------

As for time travel. "If time travel would exists, then why haven't we seen any timertravelers from the future" is proof that something dimensional happens. As for going back in time I view it graphically. If time is linear then you could not leap to any point in time, you must travel backwards on the time line. If it is an unusual function (lets say a circle). A line can be drawn between two points which I see as unexplainable and impossible to be living in time, then not, then again.

[Ghost213]

As for time travel. "If time travel would exists, then why haven't we seen any timertravelers from the future" is proof that something dimensional happens. As for going back in time I view it graphically. If time is linear then you could not leap to any point in time, you must travel backwards on the time line. If it is an unusual function (lets say a circle). A line can be drawn between two points which I see as unexplainable and impossible to be living in time, then not, then again. As for the idea that we havent seen any time travellers, how do we know what they look like, or better yet, we dont have definite proof of aliens, so are you saying that they dont exist?

Also, I look at the time line as more of a plane, because time branches if you go back in time, to form another time line, so theoretically you could jump back or forth or for that matter left, right, or even diagonally. So I feel that as opposed to time being just a linear graph, it is instead a flat plane on which the linear branches of the origional time line appear.

[Battlecruiser]

Is jesus omnipotent?

because if he was, would he be able to microwave a burrito so hot even he couldnt eat it?
But then he wouldnt be omnipotent because he wouldnt be able to eat the burrito.
Please remember this is the Intellectual Roundtable forum. Luckily you haven't been flamed yet. Oh opps, I see you explained why later on. But just don't joke around here too much. I have seen others do it, and the nerds get pissed off at them.

Firstly, black holes can take in matter faster then the speed of light, we've proved this trough math.
I never heard of that and I doubt it too. No matter can ever travel at or faster than the speed of light. Can you prove black holes can make matter do that?

[Kahuzal]

.I never heard of that and I doubt it too. No matter can ever travel at or faster than the speed of light. Can you prove black holes can make matter do that?

Escape velocity > 300 000 m/s

Mass doesn't "max out."

[Battlecruiser]

.

Escape velocity > 300 000 m/s

Mass doesn't "max out."
Is that escape velocity for a blackhole? I assume it is, but I want to make sure. If that is the escape velocity, then nothing can escape it since the maximum speed for matter is C. As the speed of an object increases toward the speed of light, the amount of energy required increases toward infinity.

[zemagicmaster]

if you created an empty area in space, took an arom and hit it then later in its path( you cleared the path so there is no interference) you hit it again and again and again. that would bring it up to lightspeed wouldnt it? because it would keep its original speed, and then it would go faster. why cant matter travel as or faster than light BC? and ghosts little burrito thing was actually funny.... and made sense. if you dont like it, think of it in different terms( note i dont believe in god, he is for people who are too weak to believe in themselves, but religious people generally are better people; nicer, kinder etc. anyway) if "God" is almighty he could defeat himself... otherwise he wouldnt be allmighty. but if he could kill himeslf he wouldnt be invincible like people try to make him out to be. sorry to all you religious people out there... i have my reasons for not believing... trust me theyre good... if you want to know why i dont believe PM me. plz dont flame this

[Kahuzal]

BC: Where'd you hear about this "nothing faster then c" thing?

zemagic: No.

[Ghost213]

In a black hole, everything is condensed into a space no bigger than a pen dot.

Thats just basic Physical Science
However, back to the point.
Light isnt the fastest thing, the gravity of a black hole pulls hard enough to even pull light towards it, and therefor can pull mass faster than the speed of light.

Oh yeah, ive already apologized for my is jesus omnipotent? joke. Dont bother to warn me again, cause im not wasting time on that anymore. However I would like people to take my other posts seriously, k?

[Kahuzal]

In a black hole, everything is condensed into a space no bigger than a pen dot.

Thats just basic Physical Science

Inside a black hole is a singularity, which has NO size, it is said to be a spacial asymtope almost.

Light isnt the fastest thing, the gravity of a black hole pulls hard enough to even pull light towards it, and therefor can pull mass faster than the speed of light.

The fastest thing was in the string theory, a specific type of string that is streched accross the universe, I forget what they called it... been a while since I even looked at anything with that.

The argument is if c is the maximum speed or not, just because it can pull at things with speed c doesn't mean that it pulls masses faster then c. However, I still say that light is massless, and objects can move faster then c.

[Ghost213]

Now then, if you take that wave, A, and make it cross with wave B, the two waves cerate what is called destructive interference. This basically means that at this point for the duration of the wave's overlapping, they will have moved all particles into the rest position, meaning there is no disturbance. The waves will continue to disturb particles after they have left each other.
Ok, heres what I dont get. If you stop all movement of particles(I assume you mean light particles(Photons)) you have no light, thus leaving a dark spot in that area. If I am incorrect, please tell me why and how.

[Battlecruiser]

The argument is if c is the maximum speed or not, just because it can pull at things with speed c doesn't mean that it pulls masses faster then c.
I agree with this part.

However, I still say that light is massless, and objects can move faster then c.
Light isn't the fastest thing. But anything made of MATTER can not reach the speed of light. There are things faster than light though. But it isn't matter.