1

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

« on: 15/05/2019 19:47:22 »

(...)

That means that I don't expect limits inside SpaceTime. I don't expect you to go out to the left to come in to the right.
I call that a limit, and limits presume borders neighboring to something else.  It's Buck Rogers in my mind.

(...)

Earth has no edge or borders because of its shape like a ball, and yet it is finite. Is it at all possible that, regarding infinity, that it "has" borders, its just  that we can never reach them because they are infinitely far away from us? Imagine a pebble infinitely distant from Earth, teleported into an unimaginably distant point in spacetime by technologically advanced alien race Sipons, of course. Who else? Is infinity, in this case, "distance" that is always the same? If distance of the most distant point of static infinity, relative to Earth, is always the same, then it represents some kind of a border, unless the pebble continues traveling, at an infinite speed, rather than just occupy the same point in spacetime. However, if the universe is constantly expanding, then infinity could have no borders, no edges, if the universe travels at an infinite speed. What you are proposing is some sort of static space, static infinity regarding its farthest point from Earth. This, I am afraid, nobody or very few could imagine, forwhy to be without a border, the universe "must" be "expanding", which cancels static infinity as such, but expanding at an infinite speed - so that the expanding infinity does not get compromised. Static infinity ought to have a border, an edge, while expanding infinity, expanding at an unimaginable, infinite speed, could be the real infinity here.


Am I talking out of my nose, or this, actually, makes sense?
 

2

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

« on: 10/05/2019 20:10:49 »

I'll use the first sentence.
"  Can two infinities cancel each other out?  "
No

Let's put it into signs
Can a minus cancel a minus?

https://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_a_minus_plus_a_minus_equal

But what if one infinity is - and the other +? Got ya! I await my Nobel Prize in Infinities. Actually, and evidently, I'm still struggling. I am currently reading A Brief History of Time though.

3

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

« on: 05/05/2019 20:22:25 »

We have got a bit off-topic here, but the premise in Star Trek is that someone has invented a "universal translator".

I agree. First I mention infinity, and then: wham! Somebody mentions universal translator. I demand to know what infinity is! (Even though science is not my thing.) Somebody invent a time machine, travel back into the past and bring back, one and only, Stephen Hawking. Universal translator . . . How do you sleep at nights?!

4

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 

5

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).

6

New Theories / Re: Does time travel equals time loop?!

« on: 12/12/2018 01:24:29 »

Yep. That's what I mean.

Well, you can't go around a hypothetical wormhole. I see your fine point though. There is always a way.

7

New Theories / Re: Does time travel equals time loop?!

« on: 11/12/2018 19:37:12 »

Well, my reasoning is that, when you press the button for time travel, and into the past, you do just that: you travel back into the past right before pressing the button, unpressing the button, if you will. And since at that particular time you still have the same desire: to press the button, you will not be able not to push/unpush the button again and again and: forever; unless: you acquire temporal shields that will shield you from backward time travel (into the past), while everybody else will then walk backwards. Hmm. Does it make a bit more sense now? I am no expert in temporal mechanics, not in the slightest; but it seems to me that my logic is not flawed.

8

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?

9

New Theories / Re: Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 13/10/2018 18:05:27 »

Logically, life abounds throughout the landscape of the greater universe, but is separated by such vast distances that detection and general confirmation of extraterrestrial life has not yet occurred

Are you sure? I saw Klingons on my TV. Allow me to explain by quoting J.K. Rowling :“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” If emotional content is strong, and if your eyes see Klingons, does that mean that you have no emotions and that you are actually blind to extraterrestrial life?! If it feels real, it is real, from your perspective. Earth, likewise the universe that you're viewing from the Hubble Space Telescope, are you sure that 'tis not a holographic simulation, that is to say, 3D TV, in which characters have AI or consciousness, a 3D television watched by God (talking 'bout The Truman Show)? Maybe there is greater universe, but, are we truly part of it and, what does it mean to us, other than being imprisoned in a holographic universe that fits in God's 3D TV? If an imperfect life form is looking for perfection likewise a perfect world with no beginning or end, his strive is misplaced and he fights a struggle he cannot possibly win, be it humility or megalomania. God and heaven or greater universe is the only thing that makes sense, that is to say, true meaning could only be found in the afterlife: an unexplored dimension, the world of the dead, aside for near-death experiences that are deficient. Are you truly prepared to venture that far? Of course you are: death is inevitable, when energy of the deceased takes another form. There are a lot of question unanswered, too many, whilst those answered did not make us very happy. Sorry man. I am in a bad mood today . . . 

10

New Theories / Re: Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 13/10/2018 16:44:36 »

What dimension are you on already?

Whatever do you mean? I mentioned two dimensions: consciousness and time, considering space, or "space" if you will, as a holodeck illusion.

11

New Theories / Re: Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 13/10/2018 15:13:22 »

(...) very philosophical I’d admit.

Too philosophical I'd admit. But, sometimes I do have my moments. And, it is always a great pleasure to be part of this fine community - - - even though I'm not a scientist, rather just naked at times (not a nudist). 

12

New Theories / Re: Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 12/10/2018 17:11:49 »

Hold your horses a bit. I need time to assimilate this info (and possibly accept it). Nice debating with you. See you again. And, if you have more thoughts to share, please do (pretending to this topic). 

13

New Theories / Re: Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 12/10/2018 16:55:27 »

How 'bout this? This universe could be - - - one of the three hearts of God, which powers Him, giving him more energy, forwhy He feeds on our aura, and auras of many, many aliens. That is why the anthropic principle stands for something, talking about Hamlet being bounded in a nut-shell, together with You and me. Man, you really inspire me!

14

New Theories / Re: Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 12/10/2018 16:30:21 »

(...)

I could suggest that the universe (space if you like) has always existed and has always been infinite, and our Big Bang might have been one unremarkable event in a landscape of the greater universe where big bang events are commonplace.

You opened my eyes. I was blind but now I see. Or do I? I could go blind again. Thanks for stopping by. Hell, let's turn this into an endless discussion!

Or time is linear; so how could it "always" be there, the greater universe, I mean? What you suggest is closer to timelessness likewise eternity, something that hasn't been observed - - - as of yet. Hmm.

15

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

16

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

« on: 17/08/2018 13:18:53 »

Well then. I guess I was wrong after all. To err is human but, have mercy, if you can . . . And, moderators have me premission to delete this topic (as if they "need it").

17

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

« on: 17/08/2018 09:06:50 »

Simulation of what?

Of You, my clueless self and everything inside it.

P.S. How 'bout a constructive comment, that is to say, I am writing a story so, is this at all edible for readers out there and, if so, which parts I ought to preserve/remove? Thanks.

18

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.     

19

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…

20

Technology / Re: Is magnetic accu-battery LD feasible?

« on: 19/02/2018 15:36:38 »

Thanks! It is good to be welcome. When you ARE welcome. Still. Never mind. It appears, I won't be receiving the Nobel Prize in Physics but, I am not bitter. Not in the slightest. No. I am not. Nah ah. But I am on it, mister! Perpetuum, - heeeeeeeere I come !!