1

General Science / Can 'Devs' and macroscopic superposition become reality?

« on: 12/12/2024 12:08:27 »

I saw the above, to me great SF series 'Devs'. I'm a bit puzzled though; not that good a science. But I'm sure someone here can alleviate my confusion.

1. Apparently, if you can inhibit decoherence, macroscopic superposition IS impossible; considering Everett interpretation. However, since we are built by quants or small particles, that exist in many states before observed, if we consider, for example, a human being not as a whole, but as countless little quants or particles that make him up, that are in many states before observed directly, isn't it true that a human being, or the Moon for that matter, IS susceptible to macroscopic superposition after all, and not just to classical state/mechanics, regardless of his/its size? Of course, if the man is observed as a collection of many particles, instead of as a macroscopic living object, that is to say, if you consider a man's particles that make him up, you might somehow produce a result known as macroscopic superposition? If so, is it possible to resurrect a dead Schrodinger's cat into a living one in a blink of an eye, if you somehow inhibit decoherence and you have an advanced computer, direct access to quantum fluctuations, superposition and many states of the cat?

2. While I'm watching a human being without a microscope or nanoscope, just using my eyes, I'm not watching particles he is made of, not directly. Instead, I am watching the man as a whole, say focusing on his face, which is to say, particles inside of him or quants ARE in the state of flux or quantum superposition, for my eyes don't have microscopic zooming ability? So, the man is not in a state of macroscopic superposition as a whole, but his particles are in a state of quantum superposition for they are not observed directly? Must I zoom all the way to the man's particles to turn quantum mechanics into classical mechanics, on a subatomic level, so that the system (for all particles in question) chooses one classical state out of many quantum states, considering countless particles that make this man up, observing him with or without a zooming ability? Or simply by looking at the man (as a whole) his particles that make him up revert from quantum superposition to a classical, one state? If it is the former, the man truly is in a state of quantum flux on a quantum level nearly all the time, or indirectly maybe even in a state of macroscopic superposition because of his quantum particles, electrons etc. that make him up, until not him as a whole, but all of his particles are directly observed with a zooming scanning ability? So, the man is in a state of classical mechanics (observed as a whole) but also in a state of superposition (on a quantum level) at the same time?! Or, this observed man is in a classical state as a whole, and his particles as well, that make him up, because it is enough to observe the man as a whole to render not just his outside, but also all of his particles inside that make him up on a subatomic level? Aw. My mind is foggy on this one.

2

General Science / Can an electron travel a bit in a copper wire for inertia?

« on: 24/11/2024 09:49:48 »

Hi. An electron is traveling through a copper wire, talking about electric circuit, let's say low voltage (though not necessarily low voltage). But, say 1 cm directly ahead you cut the wire with scissors. Will the electron freeze in place right away? Is it possible for the electron to continue traveling 1 cm for inertia or some other reason, if certain conditions are met? So, is it at all possible for the electron to somehow continue moving for a little while or longer if the wire is cut (or there's blackout or whatever) and if you were to apply something other than electricity? Thanks.

3

Just Chat! / Does an infinitely long iron bar have two tangible endpoints? (Have mercy.)

« on: 09/03/2024 13:15:03 »

Hello.

1. If You pour an infinite amount of water in an instant (by using a holodeck or advanced technology) in a bottomless well infinitely deep, by applying advanced replication, quantum teleportation and distribution of water particles,  would there be water aligned with its upper brink, at least for a short while, until it soon starts to descend, because of the antigravity plates placed equally everywhere in the well? AG here corresponds to Earth's gravity, that is to say, if you fall into the well, you will fall forever. Or the well would seem completely empty right from the start when you look into the abyss (right after putting off the magic bucket of endless water)? Forwhy, just because there is an infinite amount of stars in cosmos, that doesn't mean they are all placed next to each other filling almost the entire space (hence the blackness of space). And this perhaps applies to water molecules, if you somehow compare them to stars.

2. Everything is a matter of perspective. If you are infinitely small, a toothpick seems infinitely big to you. If you are infinitely big, the Sun seems infinitely small to you. And is it at all possible that cosmos is made out of infinitely small particles? "If from a stick a foot long you every day take the half of it, in a myriad ages it will not be exhausted." just as Zhuangzi suggested. (Is this a fine thought of mine, right before mentioning Zhuangzi, or You deem it a bit silly? I might use it for my prose project.)

3. Imagine two neighboring infinite, glowing, straight lines, that is to say, iron bars, parallel to each other, placed in a holodeck simulation, inside an endless empty space, filled with starless darkness, where the laws of physics more or less apply. And now, let's imagine that the iron bars are slowly starting to tilt towards each other, at the moment, 1 degree. Now, since the two bars are infinitely long, if they were to meet with their tips, endpoints, would that mean that their infinity is compromised? You see, if the two iron bars are truly infinite, their endpoints could NEVER touch, or else it would imply that they are not infinite after all, rather finite. So they must stay parallel to each other and never tilt, because of some unknown force, perhaps compatible with formula of creation. Ergo the two (infinitely long) iron bars MUST stop tilting (similar to the phenomenon when a starship slows down and becomes heavier when nearing the speed of light) or they cannot tilt in the first place, in order to preserve the integrity of infinity. Because, it would otherwise mean that they were finite, instead of infinite. This means, aside for yet another infinity paradox, that infinity has "certain" shapes, and it is capable of stopping or slowing down movement of certain shapes, then when two infinities would otherwise cancel each other out (similar to a computer safety measure, if we are indeed living inside a simulation generated by a quantum computer). Perhaps infinity means that there are no endpoints, tips of both iron bars, otherwise the bars would be finite? (I'm struggling with infinity.)

In other words, if you were to imagine a simple iron ring with 1 m in diameter, and then you enlarge it so that it becomes infinite, because of its "shape", which corresponds to edge, endpoint or tip, it MUST vanish and not be there anymore. And this vanishing part, I believe, has to do with the core of infinity, which applies to certain shapes or at least endopints. In essence, the one who is chasing infinity, he is actually chasing nothingness. And lack of dimensions could be a dimension by itself.

In short, there is an iron bar, infinitely long. Since I don't understand infinity, not in the slightest, and yet I'm attracted to it like a magnet, although you may or may not agree, isn't it true that endpoints are either not possible to imagine with our limited brains, hardly quantum processors? Or the endpoints simply put do not really exist, otherwise they'd compromise the integrity of "infinity"? Forwhy if endpoints do exist, doesn't that mean that the iron bar is finite after all? If you CAN imagine endpoints of an infinitely long iron bar, then you are either John Nash, who can see Big Brother as well, or infinity is but an illusion. So, infinity equals non-existing endpoints, and "finity" equals existing endpoints. Ergo infinity has parts that do not really exist, sort of like an illusion or holographic particles.

Does the darn iron bar have two endpoints, or since I can't imagine them, or because the bar is infinitely long, perhaps the endpoints don't exist, which is precisely why the bar is infinite? If the answer is "yes", as in there ARE two endpoints,  why can't I imagine these endpoints?

Does anything at all I mentioned above, hopefully, corresponds to trace of intelligence? If so, please highlight it, forwhy I might use it for my short SF story.

I just can't Imagine (infinity). Hopefully Mr. Lennon doesn't mind.

So, when do I get the Nobel prize? -_- Hopefully, You will not remove this topic, unless you really have to. After all, members here are accredit to this fine forum, who, in retrospect, are a lot less clueless than myself (and thank God for that).

In my defense, and to paraphrase Mr. Einstein, I'm just a guy asking questions. And yet, in retrospect, his questions were a lot smarter than mine. At least he is not turning in his grave, being cremated instead. (Alas, I believe that scientists took his brain before cremation of his body, in order to study it. It appears, serving humanity has its disadvantages.)

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Would a gigantic stick out of neutronium bend around the Sun?

« on: 21/02/2024 15:34:20 »

This question has to do with a story of mine I'll most probably include in my manuscript about strange stories.

Imagine stick out of neutronium, two-dimensional (length and height), perfectly symmetrical, so long that it is bigger than the Sun's diameter. It is traveling in the Solar System towards the Sun. Since immense gravity of the Sun bends space and time, if the stick approaches the Star sideways, is it true that, because of strong gravity and space bent around the Sun, that the mysterious stick would be bent as well, so that it forms a perfect circle, ring around the Sun, extending 200.000 miles from the star? If so, and I offer apologies for being a bit ignorant at science, how long would the stick have to be so that it forms a perfect, perfect ring around the Sun (extending 200.000 miles from the star)? And would this mysterious stick cause some disturbance to the Sun and its activity simply by being there, since alignment of planets etc. in the Solar System is a delicate matter and even a slight change of an angle of a planet could potentially cause a bigger problem to the entire Solar System? Thank You.

5

Technology / Will thousands of undeleted e-messages break my Gmail account on cellular phone?

« on: 24/06/2023 10:27:32 »

I'm sorry if this is too simple for You guys and gals, but this is extremely important to me, since I almost never delete my e-messages (usually a bit of text, prose, poetry), and I have thousands of them on my Gmail account on Google browser, and at least hundreds if not thousands on my cellular phone, as I synchronized later on (I guess I synchronized since I use Gmail on both computer and cellular phone). Can a lot of e-mail messages cause problems on Gmail on my cellular phone, or not at all, and even delete automatically many e-messages? Thanks.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How dense is neutronium and how many stars are in the Milky Way?

« on: 20/12/2022 10:36:23 »

Hello.

Sorry if I'm being a bore, but I need reassurance because I'm writing a SF story. 1) So, are there approximately 200 000 000 000 stars in the Milky Way (200 billion stars) and I take it that the number of the stars in the cosmos is infinite? 2) Is neutronium so heavy and dense that there is virtually no space between subparticles (in its atoms or molecules?)? Thanks.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What would you see looking at a chameleon ship that changes color fast?

« on: 01/10/2022 10:15:44 »

Hello everybody.

In a SF story of mine that I'm writing, a mysterious chameleon ship is changing color every nanosecond, considering all colors. My question is, what would you see if you had your eyes fixed on its hull for a minute? It seems to me that one nanosecond is so fast that I'm clueless as to answer the perhaps silly question with certainty. Thanks.

8

Physiology & Medicine / Can a cigarette be used for nicotine poisoning?

« on: 23/04/2022 18:57:38 »

Hello.

I guess I could use information for a detective story of mine I’m contemplating. I watched an episode of Death in Paradise, where a woman cooked tobacco I think of one cigarette only and presumably in boiling water. She then placed the dried/cooked tobacco in an empty capsule and swallowed the capsule, soon after dying, in order to frame this “murder” to a certain priest.  I guess I could use tips/info about details regarding this particular instance of deadly nicotine poisoning if I were to understand it and write an acceptable story w/o appearing ignorant.

Thanks if You know something about this and can shed light on this tragic matter, regarding: nicotine poisoning.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does matter of astronomical bodies in Solar System fit in a hot-air balloon?

« on: 07/09/2021 15:44:15 »

Inspired by  Anthony Peake, who suggests that most of atom is empty space, the question in the title stands, considering ALL matter of astronomical bodies in our Solar System; that is to say, I guess I need a hot-air balloon in a SF story of mine to make a point; but it doesn't necessarily have to be a "darn" hot-air balloon, perhaps something else, maybe a fruit. Thanks a lot. 

10

General Science / Binary star: What color is the sky on a planet?

« on: 19/05/2021 14:39:16 »

Hello. There is a binary star consisting of two stars, red dwarf and blue dwarf. The red dwarf has a mass twice smaller than the mass of our Sun, while the blue dwarf is smaller than the red dwarf. There is a planet orbiting around the binary star, at a distance, say, close to the distance between Earth and the Sun, which planet is similar to Earth, with similar atmosphere. Life, apparently, in my story, evolved there, where live aliens similar to humans. What color is the sky during day? (Additionally, what color is the sky at the sunrise and the sunset?). Thanks a lot.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How realistic is the science on "Star Trek" (and other SF?)

« on: 04/05/2019 15:34:24 »

In order for anything to move at light speed, never mind "infinitely fast", it needs an infinite amount of energy. This cannot be obtained from a finite mass. So there's nothng to worry about - it simply can't happen.

All right then.

So, basically, what you are saying is that, well, Star Trek is lying to us?! Enterprise CANNOT travel faster than light?! Well then. That is not a nice thing to say to a Trekkie, is it now. Not to worry. I forgive you.

This discussion on Star Trek was split off from here - moderator 

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can two infinities cancel each other out?

« on: 04/05/2019 14:26:58 »

Give me a hand, will ya (struggling probably with basics, trying to understand a certain idea, "just asking questions").

Let us imagine a parallel universe infinitely vast, consisting of nothing but space and one chicken egg “in the middle” or where it all started. Somehow, in one nanosecond the egg infinitely enlarges itself, so that the yolk, the yellow internal part of the egg, becomes infinitely big, but also the white which surrounds the yolk; while the shell did not get thicker (like the yolk and the white), rather stayed thin but it stretched to infinity (infinitely big). Now, let as suppose that a dolphin is in the center of this parallel universe, “in the middle” of the yolk. The dolphin starts to swim infinitely fast. Will it travel (instantly) from the yolk to the white, or, since the yolk is infinitely big, would the yolk cancel out the white, so that the yolk’s infinity isn’t compromised? So, will the first infinity (the yolk) cancel infinity that surrounds it (the white) so that the yolk’s infinity does not get compromised? And, will the dolphin reach the eggshell, which represents the edge/border of this parallel universe, and would he somehow be able to break it (even though, evidently, nothing should exist beyond the eggshell)?

And, if space is infinitely big, can this space be perfectly still or it is a rule that it must always be expanding, like space in our universe?

Thanks (for Your patience).

13

New Theories / Does time travel equals time loop?!

« on: 11/12/2018 08:50:10 »

It appears, there IS a mathematical reason why a time travel machine could not be able to disrupt spacetime continuum enough to go backwards in time.

The proof? Here we go. Let us suppose that you just invented a time machine. Yay! Naturally, you want to try this hot rod out, that is to say, you are about to press the button for traveling into the past at a certain speed. However, since you neglected to include temporal shields to encompass and protect the time machine, and, of course, you in it, it appears the following will happen: a temporal loop. Time loop is a plot device in which periods of time are repeated and re-experienced by the characters; but in this instance, there is no hope of breaking out of the cycle of repetition, so it is more of a casual loop, I think. To cut a long story short, you will be pressing the button (for time travel) forever (!) in this time loop forwhy you haven’t temporal shields around your time machine. In other words, the moment you press the button for time travel you WILL travel back in time, but for the duration less than a nanosecond (!), more precisely, to the moment when you are about to press the button. So, this time loop, with duration of a blink of an eye, is likely to occur at the very first try at time travel — without the temporal shields. Am I wrong to think that? Did You think of it already?

14

New Theories / Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 12/10/2018 14:59:49 »

If the universe, in particular space, is infinite, it could've become infinite one nanosecond after the Big Bang. Infinity, as such, is unmeasurable, and who is to say that, in a holographic model of the universe, whilst the speed of light if finite, it takes several billion years for the universe to become infinite? To measure unmeasurable by using the passage of linear time, and from our very human perspective, ‘tis fruitless in its conception. Infinity strongly suggests creationism rather than evolution, unless such term (infinity) is used to describe something extremely big that used to be extremely small, having singularity likewise human imperfections in mind, who usually think in small terms, that is to say, the inability to comprehend: infinity. The model of expanding universe has a finite speed, and as such removes infinity (the universe extending forever into space and time) from the equation, in particular since it is deeply connected to linear time, hence spacetime continuum. Or, dark energy has such properties, where one of them is capable to “stretch” to infinity, having in mind a simulated universe and the illusion of mass.

And that is why Jesus said: “(…) I tell you the truth, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you." A mountain is imposing, but in a holographic universe, it represents a great illusion. It appears, dozens of Stone Giants are, actually, smaller than ants, considering that their mass fits in something a lot smaller than an ant, paraphrasing words by Anthony Peake: “99.9 of atom is empty space, whilst protons, neutrons and electrons are not physical bodies, rather fluctuations in a field of energy; and, to top that, the entire mass that comprises the entire human race fits — into a sugar cube!” Furthermore, and considering mass alone, Earth (using my words) is actually the size of a hot air balloon. I believe, that this makes us: ghosts, who think that we are flesh and bone because of digital projection of our consciousness. In a dream world a lot more is possible than thought centuries before, like, flying to the moon, sending voice over the ocean, discovering phantom DNK etc., things that were unthinkable before the bloom of science, and now are but well-known “things” and even trivial.
 
Just because you're unable to count the stars it does not automatically mean that they are infinite in number. There are a lot of Hindu Indians, but this neither suggests, to a country like Lichtenstein, an analogy that their number is infinite nor that there is an infinite number of stars, though there are charming Bollywood stars. For all you know, you could be in a holodeck thinking that you are in an infinitely big universe. The analogy is treadmill (running machine). Imagine that you were running, like a hamster in hamster wheel, or even better, Usain Bolt, at a constant speed of 44.72km/h (thanks to Gatorade) for 13.7 billion years on a treadmill. Now, how many kilometers did you travel — for real? The answer is: zero. Yes. Zero kilometers. And that might as well be the truth regarding this universe: it does not even have one lousy kilometer. Ah, we are but prisoners of virtual reality . . .

If, perchance, you’d like another analogy, well then: wait no more (tempus fugit)! Let’s say, that the scepter of our Lord is made out of plain wood. Because he was a modest carpenter. But, there is something very special about it, and, not easily understood, that is to say, it is infinitely long. If you’d mark the stick with a red color by making “a red ring”, that’d be the middle of the stick. Why? Forwhy infinity, although unmeasurable, it always has equal length. If you’d paint another red mark 100 miles from the 1st mark, that mark too would be the middle of the infinitely long stick, forwhy, although unmeasurable, infinity is equivalent to another infinity: considering the length of the stick on the left of the red mark and (the very same) length on the right from the red mark, be it the 1st or 2nd red mark. If one undergoes a tremendous project of trying to measure the exact length of this infinitely long stick, he’d be capable to measure — the middle of the stick only, forwhy the middle of an infinitely long stick is — every nanometer of the stick. And so, the length of an infinitely long stick equals zero, that is to say, infinity, as such, can only exist in a holographic model of the universe. Infinity is, pretty much, a proof that, if it exists in this universe, we are all located in — a holodeck.

And so considering illusions and "space"time continuum, the only thing that might be real in this universe is consciousness that is dependable to the passage of time. So one might say that there are two real dimensions: consciousness and time, where space (that is to say, three special dimensions) is compromised to such degree that we, perhaps, ought to try to find real space: our true home: holodeck — — — and get the hell out of there?!

From this I conclude that the universe is two-dimensional, talking 'bout two-dimensional universe theory. Thanks for tuning in.


Domagoj

15

General Science / is the universe a simulation? (pros and cons)

« on: 16/08/2018 20:34:29 »

Imagine a stairway with an infinite number of stairs: w/o the beginning and w/o the end.

Every step, in this paradigm, ought to be marked with an arithmetic sequence of positive numbers alone. But how could any step have a corresponding number? You see, if one step only is but marked with a number it would compromise an infinite number of steps, that is to say, no matter how big a number it’d have, be it googol, looking backwards the number of steps would then have to be finite, which is not the case here, in other words, infinity would then spread in one direction only: upstairs, instead of two directions: downstairs and upstairs.

And if the stairway would have corresponding negative and positive numbers, where exactly would the center of the stairway be? In this scenario, every step would be the center of the stairway, all having the same number: zero. You see, infinity devours all the numbers but one: zero.

From this I conclude, if universe is infinite, there is only one number that his unmeasurable size could ever have: zero. Every angstrom of space is a multidimensional beginning of the universe, which is susceptible to three aspects of time: the past, the present and the future. So everything we see is the beginning of the universe which, evidently, has holographic properties and quite possibly represents a simulation, where the end of the universe is — but an illusion. There is only the beginning.     

16

New Theories / The cosmological arrow of time: is the present catalyst for time and anti-time?

« on: 08/04/2018 21:04:22 »

Hello all.

“One reads poetry. I myself sing it. Is the Word more important than the Voice? Do we gaze at poetry w/o uttering a sound? Does poetry belong to eyes more than it does to ears? When one hears a poem through his eyes, the Word is close again, when a reader's and poet's heart will become one and then travel back through time like two tachyon particles to witness the birth of the universe.” — clueless (I happen to be a poet)


Depending on whether you're hungry for sustenance or knowledge, every nanosecond is a moment in time - once it has elapsed. If you consider the present as a moment, rather than the present time, that is to say, as the current nanosecond, having in mind precision and punctuality (or machines for that matter), tell me: can you be hungry for sustenance or knowledge in this nanosecond which, apparently, allows you to be alive and exist, or both sustenance and knowledge are out of reach, considering little time at our disposal and limited organic memories stored in different, interconnected brain regions? If life is defined as the present time, life makes more sense; however, w/o the past, the present, with our recent, daily impressions to consider likewise long-term memories (talking about temporal incursions and penetrating the past), means nothing regarding life which, fully exists, as such, in the present nanosecond, with the following question in mind: “What becomes of day when it becomes yesterday?” and yet, while time travel happens all the time into the future (say, at the rate of one second per second), considering the following temporal paradox: our memories and imagination, where with the former we penetrate the past, while with the latter we realize ourselves through technocracy likewise technological progress, with the future ensuring the continuity of spacetime, inviting both hunger for sustenance and knowledge. But, all this is academic. ‘Our’ perception, from a certain (human) observer’s point of view, ensures a union, like that of spacetime, where one cannot exist w/o the other.

Albeit there is equivalence between time and matter, mayhap there is more to it, having in mind a thought-provoking premise of creating matter out of time. To even consider this seemingly impossible task, time is not necessarily what it seems, that is to say, time loops, if there are any, are constantly resetting, thus the loop starts again; and although you retain the memories from the previous loop, there are discrepancies in the next emanation. Having time loops in mind, for all we know, the Big Bang happens over and over again endlessly after, say, 15 billion years. So, we are talking about possible futures and alternative timelines likewise memories that, although interchangeable, show certain similarities, and so do not represent the truth and nothing but the truth, thus no one’s testimony can be admitted in any civil court of law. So, in a sense, lie IS the truth, your truth that is, from an another observer's point of view, whose consciousness might be an independent variable, colored by the personalities of witnesses that present them from their OWN point of view. So, maybe we were communicating on the Naked Scientists website countless of times before, and perhaps I wasn’t clueless back then, even though my username IS ‘clueless’, but that means one thing only: ‘we’ did NOT communicate at all, not really, forwhy ‘you’ and ‘me’ are susceptible to time loops and, there is no anchor, continuity of our correspondence that has no integrity to preserve from the point of view that is compatible with the truth continuum. So, if you tell a lie, it is not necessarily so, forwhy it might be, as a matter of a fact, the ultimate fluctuating truth, based on changes that concern the biggest picture: space, the final frontier.   

And, what IS time, as WE know it? having in mind a challenging idea of creating matter out of time. The flow of sand in an hourglass represents the present as being between the past and the future. But, is ‘the upper bulb’ getting emptier and emptier, suggesting that ‘stuff’ is slowly disappearing in the past, with moments, that are but temporal grains of the sand of time, being irretrievably lost, or are ‘they’ empty at first but, once they, constantly flowing, reach the present from the past, which proves that traveling to the future is possible, memories, that are accumulated in the present, are imprinted on them, when these grains of sand become substances meant for storing memory.
 
But, now we have but a paradox, forwhy these grains of sand flow into the future; so, is the memory of time, stored in its fabric, actually in the past, or is it in the future? Is the future, or at least an aspect of it, equivalent of the past forwhy time flows linearly in one direction: into the future, and so its memories MUST be stored deeper, and deeper into the future, forwhy the passage of time is not reversible from linear time point of view. 

I call this theory the cosmological arrow of time paradox which, points in the direction of the universe's expansion, where continuum relies on memories thus remembers its entire existence deeper, and deeper into the future, forwhy w/o memories, that are not indigenous exclusively to organisms like humans (need I remind you that computers have memory too), the mechanism of spacetime cannot be; otherwise, it'd be a meaningless, an entirely chaotic system w/o not any order whatsoever, forwhy order depends on memories in order to preserve its integrity otherwise — there isn’t any (God does not play dice. We do.). Universe is not ‘brainless’ and w/o memories. Its richness grows like an organism where there are often changes because of the evolution or, mayhap, unfortunate devolution. Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions. But now, we just might be aware that, dynamics of the passage of time is necessary, considering a formula of all creation, likewise essential for the creation of matter and anti-matter, and an integral part in a dynamic model of accelerated expansion of the universe.

Furthermore, since the present is the mother of all the past, w/o which history cannot exist and is but a myth, forwhy the present, as we perceive it, once belonged to each and every passed nanosecond/day, one ought to conclude, or at least consider, that the present sends two type of temporal waves, with one of them being tachyons, back into to the past, with tachyons suggesting the presence of anti-time which, in turn, happens to be the past, that is to say, the spaceanti-time continuum, recalling that anti-time has a relationship to time analogous to the relationship that antimatter has to normal matter. So, the fabric of the past is significantly different than the fabric of the present, where spacetime, compatible more with matter, creates and gives birth, from the present, to anti-matter in the past and the past itself, where anti-matter is more likely to exist in the past, by utilizing tachyons which are, following the same line of thought, more associated with anti-matter than matter. In a sense, if you consider the present as an aircraft, where its diesel engine propels it through air by creating smog, time engine, on the other hand, produces tachyons that propel it — into the future. And since tachyons have but linear travel, though in the opposite direction of the present which strives to travel into the future in order not to compromise linear time, one ought to conclude, or at least consider, that the past, the Bing Bang especially, is yet to occur considering tachyon particles likewise anti-time temporal waves, having in mind multidimensionality of the above temporal paradox.

From this I conclude, that the present travels in two directions: into the future, by utilizing temporal waves I call futuryons, and also into the past, by sending temporal waves tachyons. So, since the Big Bang is yet to occur, likewise the Big Crunch, with the cosmological arrow of time then reversing as gravity pulls everything back into a Big Crunch, we ought to conclude that there are two presents, that is to say, the present and the anti-present, which suggest two seemingly entirely opposite timelines, + and -. So, the beginning of the spacetime and the spaceanti-time continuum was not the Big Bang, rather the beginning of the present and anti-present, each belonging to a different universe: two parallel universes that comprise the multiverse, and in a sense, between one another, like the upper and lower bulb, where the lower one is being filled with time, and the upper with anti-time, that is to say, the bulbs could be considered as parallel universes, where the ‘upper’ bulb is NOT getting emptier. One might say that present and anti-present are traveling at an identical constant speed, possibly that of light, seemingly away from one another, with the present traveling in one direction: into the future, and the anti-present traveling in the opposite direction: into the past. 

Considering the initial conditions in the early universe/s, what then, I ask, created spacetime and spaceanti-time displaced into two parallel universes, as a matter of a fact, that were born at the exact moment in time and anti-time? What was the catalyst likewise a creator of futuryons and tachyons? Who sends these temporal waves, seemingly in complete opposition? That'd be, my cyber friends, the true center of the multiverse, consisting of the beginning of both parallel universes, where one has time and the other anti-time. So, the Big Bang is not Alpha, as in the beginning likewise the center of the universe, rather, just like the Big Crunch, the middle of time/anti-time; in other words, the Big Bang and the Big crunch will one day collide — long after the Big Bang and the Big Crunch occur at the exact same moment in time likewise anti-time, when the explosion of the Big Bang will reverse anti-time (belonging to the past) into time, with analogy being either Loschmidt's paradox or simply rechargeable battery as its current flow is reversed when plugged into an electrical socket with alternating current. At the very same moment in time (anti-time, likewise), sort to speak, time that considers the present (which flows into the future) will become anti-time reversed by the Big Crunch, thus futuryons will become tachyons (and vice-versa in spaceanti-time), similarly to converting negative polarity to positive, and positive to a negative. And while the reversed timelines now traveling 'towards' one another collide, THEN it'll be the end of the multiverse, forwhy futuryons are harmless when travelling in the opposite direction of tachyons, otherwise differences, usually, attract one another. But, when they travel towards one another, that is to say, when the present that reaches the Big Crunch and the anti-present that reaches the Big Bang reverse their roles likewise direction of travel, when the present and the anti-present finally meet (oh no!), annihilation will occur, similar to ‘rendezvous’ of matter and antimatter, when energy will be released mostly in the form of gamma radiation, a type of radiation with a very short wavelength that passes through most solid objects. Emphasis is on 'short' wavelength forwhy the multiverse, when it reaches its end and final stage, comprised of what once used to be the, seemingly, infinite universe and anti-universe, will exhibit similarities to two very small — Singularities, occupying the very same space as parallel universes. However, the gamma radiation, that will be able to pass through both Singularities, will stimulate both which, just might produce, just like before (in the ‘true’ beginning), casual loop, where independent variable can only be — — — God.

So. Whaddya think? Nebulous, or interesting stuff (with the latter being an ancient Chinese curse)? 

That’s all folks! At the very least, commend my imagination. And — be gentle…

17

Technology / Is magnetic accu-battery LD feasible?

« on: 19/02/2018 10:24:21 »

Hello. Have mercy! Or at least be gentle.

Magnetic plates. Need I say more? You see, electrons can be deflected by the magnetic plates. When an electron moves, it generates a magnetic field. So far as I know, this is how an electromagnet functions. Electrons flow through the wire and a field is generated (I copied/pasted stuff on the Internet).
There was a physics lab demonstration where a wire was placed next to a magnet. When power through the wire was switched on, the wire jumped dramatically. This indicates that a magnetic field is generated by the electron movement through the wire, that is to say, an electron's movement generates a magnetic field, that is to say, the electron has become a magnet.

Since magnets exert a force on one another, when a small "magnet" such as an electron passes through the field of a larger, more powerful magnet, then we should expect that the electron will be deflected just as a small piece of magnetic metal would.

So, about my idea, and magnetic accu-battery LD, what we have here, or not, is a battery that lasts a lot longer than Duracell battery, if that is at all possible. So, you place a magnetic plate, a bit of a magnet, that is, small but powerful enough to deflect half of the electrons that are traveling from anode to cathode, talking about a crossroad (similar to the one on the picture attached to this topic), where half of the electrons travel/go into the cathode, and the other half is deflected so they return to its starting position: into the anode.

But, if a battery has 100 electrons, protons and whatnot, the same 100 cannot, I repeat, cannot return into it (the battery, I mean) if one considers 50 electrons that power my table lamp, and so: my table lamp is guilty for everything!
So, adios, perpetuum, and see you later, darlin’?!

p.s. The photo is not quite perfect, but in my defense, I have osteoarthritis.

18

Just Chat! / tesseract + time = God

« on: 22/02/2017 15:45:39 »

Have you ever wondered why do we have five digits on hands? It is a bit of a clue. In Christian tradition, the Five Holy Wounds are the five piercing wounds Jesus suffered during the Crucifixion. As per geometry, the tesseract is the four-dimensional analog of the cube; and if you add time to tesseract, then we are talking about five dimensions, having in mind spacetime. I believe then, and only then, we could get closer to God, who MUST have an additional dimension, otherwise he’d be susceptible to laws of our universe, and there would be no Heaven, which defies laws of THIS universe. In short, the tesseract + time = God.


So one of the hidden sacraments, is, possibly, the truth, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God in three Divine Persons, happens to be an incomplete interpretation of God, who is actually FIVE Divine Persons. And who are the two missing links, who are the mysterious two, w/o which God is incomplete? I am afraid, that is a secret from above. After all, God is entitled to be mysterious, even though he is not a woman, I think. Trinity? I am afraid, Trinity is now pretty much obsolete, for we ought to try to discover the mentioned two Divine Persons, in order to even consider God. But that is just it, isn’t it? Lucifer allegedly wanted to be equal to God, to be all-knowing, all almighty, stuff like that. There are secrets that will remain unrevealed, to us, that is, for we are not worthy, we are not even angels, rather people who ask questions because of our immortal soul, with questions, at times, being rather silly, having our mega imperfection in mind.


Should we cling onto Pentinity now? Are we blasphemers if we dismiss Trinity? I guess, we’ll never know. Then again, who does? You?

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is special about Special Relativity?

« on: 07/02/2017 09:19:19 »

(…) So, travelling at close to the speed of light would theoretically allow time travel into the future, as time slows down for the speeding object in order to "protect" the cosmic speed limit of the speed of light. A corollary of all this is that, if it were possible to exceed the speed of light, then it would also be possible to go back in time, which raises the possibility of time-travel paradoxes (where a person goes back in time and interferes in their own past or kills their own grandparents, etc), although some scientists believe that some as yet undiscovered law of physics may intervene to prevent such paradoxes. Actually, special relativity does not specifically forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light, and there is a hypothetical sub-atomic particle called a tachyon, which would indeed spend its entire life travelling faster than the speed of light, but it is currently still hypothetical.

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. Hence, and behold, our space time continuum. If time machine is accelerating so it reaches the cosmic speed limit of the speed of light, I, clueless, project my gut feeling, which is plausibly an unexpected idea and quite original too. So what does my gut feeling likewise quite possibly flawed logic tell me? Well, since this universe apparently has four dimensions, my opinion is that space cannot exist w/o time, hence space time continuum. So when this time machine reaches the speed of light, time slows down and stops, thus time and three-dimensional space will cancel each other out and time machine will vanish, for w/o the passage of time, time machine cannot neither exist in our universe nor compromise spacetime, having certain laws of physics in mind. Ergo traveling into the future is possible. However, traveling into the past is impossible, which makes tachyons but a fairytale. I guess the question here is, can time slow down so it comes to a halt and then somehow transform into anti-time in order to travel back into the past. Since there is apparently the cosmic speed limit of the speed of light, it is reasonable to assume there is the cosmic time limit of the speed of time, which renders traveling into the past… impossible.
 
Have a nice day. If you can. 

20

New Theories / Creationism?

« on: 25/10/2016 01:08:20 »

Creationism and the anthropic principle may suit one well. Yet it occurs to me, one cannot build a house on Alpha Centauri Bb from Earth. You first must land on a distant class M planet to build a house there. So if God is the creator of the entire expanding universe, His presence should be required. If God truly is in everything, then one should assume that His phantom DNA spreads throughout the entire universe. Though we cannot detect God’s DNA because it is e.g. cloaked or we are not technologically advanced enough. It appears, God uses his phantom DNA to create everything, to be everywhere in the universe, with His DNA being superior as it spreads at infinite speed and distances. Since God is the most advanced and most powerful entity, all He can create is less advanced entities and primitive creatures, otherwise He Himself would be a blasphemer, because there is one God only.

To recapitulate, to create the entire universe, you usually have to be physically everywhere, because I never heard of a man who built himself a house in Argentina from Pakistan. So, when you have the most advanced DNA, and you don’t want to share power otherwise it is blasphemy, all you can create is Oprah. Though Oprah is very nice, she does not appear to be a goddess to me even though tastes differ.