It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI: Time Travel 101: A How To Guide

page: 18
163
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by angrysniper



The last quote you provided should be all that needs to be said about the alcubierre drive. The object in question (the ship) is not moving, it is the space around it that is being altered relative to the space that would need to be 'traveled' in order to wind up at a destination. No information (matter) is traveling faster than light or even close to it. From our perspective, of course, an object within this warped space would appear to be traveling faster than light without violating the light barrier. It is true that this has never been observed as a natural phenomenon, but what we are talking about here is an artificial phenomenon, so that is not relevant. Now, considering that altering the fabric of space in order to "travel" faster than light also involves altering relative time (because they are one in the same, as you know), I'd say that FTL capability is intrinsic to time travel, and vice versa


That quote of mine that you keep insisting proves your idea to be true, states that there is nothing out there yet that shows it is even remotely possible. Keeping that in mind as well as the fact that the theory we are discussing suggests that it is also not possible for your idea to work... because it is not possible to go faster than the speed of light.

Are you not aware that the faster you go the bigger and more massive you become? The bigger and more massive you become the more engery is required to continue picking up speed. If you were to get to the speed of light you would now be infinitely massive, thus you would now need an infinite amount of energy to continue gaining speed. That is an amount of energy we just don't have... Yet another road block in your idea...


And yes, it certainly IS possible within the theory of special relativity. Simply saying it isn't possible doesn't make it so. The theory of special relativity states that as an object increases velocity so does its mass, but the object in question is not increasing velocity. It is stationary in relation to the space around it. Light within that space still travels faster than the object in question. The space around it is what is moving, not the mass of the ship. The end result is faster than light travel, but it does not involve accelerating mass in the conventional sense.



within the theory of relativity NO it is not.

as I quoted before.... I will quote again


one of the consequences of special relativity is that (assuming causality is to be preserved), no information or material object can travel faster than light. On the other hand, the logical situation is not as clear in the case of general relativity, so it is an open question whether there is some fundamental principle that preserves causality (and therefore prevents motion faster than light) in general relativity.




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Originally posted by gormly


1. From where did all this material (Universe) originate?
2. What was there before the materials (Universe) originated?



While I admit I certainly do not know the answer to those questions, scientists including Stephen Hawking have been looking into that.

The theory of relativity, is only able to explain the universe as a whole starting from the point just after the big bang occured, onward.

New theories such as String theory, pick up where the theory of relativity becomes usesless, which is, what what was it like before the big bang?

From what little I do know about string theory, it suggests that before the big bang, all matter and energy was confined to a single point... how this happens or why, I don't know...

Does anybody know more about string theory? Perhaps you could help my buddy here with these questions, better than I can.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by thoughtplacebo
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


I recommend looking into M Theory.


Thanks, actually what this thread has encouraged me to do is look into both String and M theories and learn everything I can about them.

As I have said before, string theory takes over where the theory of relativity is completely usesless, which is before the big bang. Relativity only works from the point of just after the big bang, onward so it is a natural progression to study string theory and them M ( Multi verse)theory....



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Thank you "tauris" for your explanation. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is time lines are just different possibilities or paths that I as one single person in a single universe could take. Each time line ceases to exist at the very next instant when I take the next decision or step or flip the next coin. And I continue in the next time line that has been created at that instant. Therefore I continue as a single being in a single universe simply following the path that I have chosen. There are no other universes for me or for my dentist.
Would you agree?



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Lets suppose a time machine was invented and you wanted to go back in the past to change an event...how much of a ripple effect would it have on the future? The effect could have positive and negative elements and you'd be internally weighing the risks before you ventured into this time travel.

I suppose the point I'm making is that every experience we have in life changes our perspective on the world around us and we have a choice in how we allow these experiences to define our character. We can choose some event to make us bitter or better, angry or forgiving, selfish or giving, etc.
Going back in time may change something in particular you desire, but it can also alter another important lesson you needed to learn. You'd not only alter your future ,but perhaps the future of those around you.

Be careful what you wish for...it just may come true. Look forward because we have the opportunity to change the future, embrace the present with good will, and learn from the valuable lessons of the past.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by Lois]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
www.cbc.ca...

Scientist break the speed of light...a very interesting article.

Like Kevin Smith (The Kevin Smith Show) asked Michio Kaku..." Isn't it true that the laws of phyisics aren't actually laws at all, but just our current understanding of how things work?" Michio agreed with Kevin.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
That's the point, change a past event of your life would change life of all around you and perhaps of other people. More if we are talking about a relation. But that's what it means Change the past, change your life and others.

About lessons, I think that back to the past with all what you learned would be better to you. Perhaps.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Complimentary to John Titor I found a real fascination piece of information about time travel. bielek.com - order the CD, you would not be disappointed. This was done before any of the StarGate movies came out.

According to Al Beilek, Duncan Cameron, Preston Nicoles, Stwart Swerdlow, all part of the Military time travel project which started as Project rainbow, then Project invisibility, Philadelphia experiment and then lately Mantuk project, originally all based on Nicholas Tesla's information. He was in charge of the original project.

- The information indicates that they used the landed UFO seat along with the person using the chair using their mind to project a time tunnel. The time tunnel was projected on a wall. Originally they sent items which did not come back, then they started with kids on the street. They indicate that FBI reports 4 million kids in US missing every year - that is every year.

- Through the time tunnel they have sent military folks to the moon base, Mars base they saw a statue in the underground empty base with writings on it, they have sent people to change the civil war so that the South Won. The capital became Atlanta. In other experiments they sent trucks through the time tunnel to China someplace. Another experiment they sent a troop of folks through the time tunnel to assist Hitler to win the war. He did but was defeated later. Another experiment with Kennedy assassination, he survived but his popularity dwindled. Lots more experiments - listen to the CD.

- They also found that the time travel chair - UFO downed Roswell chair enhanced (a new realization) mind power, they also delved deep into mind control, reducing the Manchurian Candidate (a month's training) to a matter of hour. Mind wipe using a technology developed. Most of these were done under the Mantuk base.

- They also indicated that they brought in the Sasquatch - They called him "the Junior" through the time tunnel, there are pictures on the web with it around the base turret. They had to call the military to get rid of it.

- They also worked with the Reptilians and Greys.

- He traveled to 2483 in the future, back to 2153, back to 1984, he has some great recounts on what the future looks like.

I could use another member's take on this. The information is mp3 format and available at some torrent sites



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Originally posted by angrysniper



The last quote you provided should be all that needs to be said about the alcubierre drive. The object in question (the ship) is not moving, it is the space around it that is being altered relative to the space that would need to be 'traveled' in order to wind up at a destination. No information (matter) is traveling faster than light or even close to it. From our perspective, of course, an object within this warped space would appear to be traveling faster than light without violating the light barrier. It is true that this has never been observed as a natural phenomenon, but what we are talking about here is an artificial phenomenon, so that is not relevant. Now, considering that altering the fabric of space in order to "travel" faster than light also involves altering relative time (because they are one in the same, as you know), I'd say that FTL capability is intrinsic to time travel, and vice versa


That quote of mine that you keep insisting proves your idea to be true, states that there is nothing out there yet that shows it is even remotely possible. Keeping that in mind as well as the fact that the theory we are discussing suggests that it is also not possible for your idea to work... because it is not possible to go faster than the speed of light.

Are you not aware that the faster you go the bigger and more massive you become? The bigger and more massive you become the more engery is required to continue picking up speed. If you were to get to the speed of light you would now be infinitely massive, thus you would now need an infinite amount of energy to continue gaining speed. That is an amount of energy we just don't have... Yet another road block in your idea...


And yes, it certainly IS possible within the theory of special relativity. Simply saying it isn't possible doesn't make it so. The theory of special relativity states that as an object increases velocity so does its mass, but the object in question is not increasing velocity. It is stationary in relation to the space around it. Light within that space still travels faster than the object in question. The space around it is what is moving, not the mass of the ship. The end result is faster than light travel, but it does not involve accelerating mass in the conventional sense.



within the theory of relativity NO it is not.

as I quoted before.... I will quote again


one of the consequences of special relativity is that (assuming causality is to be preserved), no information or material object can travel faster than light. On the other hand, the logical situation is not as clear in the case of general relativity, so it is an open question whether there is some fundamental principle that preserves causality (and therefore prevents motion faster than light) in general relativity.




You may want to read what you're quoting. It is not possible for MASS to ACCELERATE to the speed of light. It IS possible for space to be warped by gravity to such a degree that the space around a ship or other object is carrying the object within it at a speed greater than light relative to the space outside of that region. Reading helps.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by angrysniper]

And yes, what you said about the energy requirements is certainly true, but certain avenues, such as the casimir force, may one day provide a way around that obstacle. The theory itself however does not violate special relativity. That is a fact. Do research on the alcubierre drive and you will find this to be true, despite my showing you in simple language how no mass is accelerating to the speed of light, it only takes a second for you to google it.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by angrysniper]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by angrysniper



You may want to read what you're quoting. It is not possible for MASS to ACCELERATE to the speed of light. It IS possible for space to be warped by gravity to such a degree that the space around a ship or other object is carrying the object within it at a speed greater than light relative to the space outside of that region. Reading helps.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by angrysniper]



First off , I have read it. Don't ever accuse me of not reading it. That is a huge pet peeve of mine... Unwarranted accusations that is.

Second, you are misinterpreting what it states. You admit yourself that it is impossible for a mass to get to the speed of light but then you contradict yourself telling me a way that you think it is possible..

So which is it, Do you think it is possible or not?

If it is impossible for an object to accelerate to the speed of light, there is not but. What you are telling me is It is impossible but....

If a mass cannot be accelarated to the speed of light... let alone faster than it( Which has also been explained as impossible due the fact that after you got close to that speed you would then need an infinite amount of energy for it to continue to accelerate.) Then there is no force out there that can cause it to accelerate at that speed.

You know, there is a reason why there have been no discoveries to even warrant a relevant look into this drive you keep bringing up.....

On that note, I have provided all kinds of science showing that it is not possible, I have quoted the special theory of relativity , others have shown mathimatically... Yet all you have shown me was a post telling me that bob Lazar once said it was possible...

So please, instead of just expecting me to take your word for it, (something I am never willing to do with anyone) could you please at least provide some links to relevant/legit websites that state , what you are claiming is true?

I have done so for my side of the debate... now I feel it is your turn.

Let's see some documentation.. a legit website... a relevant website that proves the special of theory wrong... yes that is what you would have to do here.. prove the special theory of relativity wrong in order for this claim of yours to work.

As I have shown you, " the special theory of relativity shows that it is not possible to go the speed of light, let alone faster... period.

So why don't you show me, this method that proves the Special theory of relativity wrong ( you know you would think that if there was something out there that proved this theory wrong it would have been mentioned a bit more... by people besides conspiracy theorists that is... All this time Genius scientists such as Stephen Hawking have been saying the theory is accurate when it wasn't... I guess it is a cover up?)

If you cannot prove the special theory of relativity wrong here... well then maybe that should tell you something about your claim...



[edit on 11-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by angrysniper
 


Just to simplify that whole long response of mine... what I am asking for is a single shred of evidence to back up your claim... From a legit/relevant website. I have seen quite a few links from Harvard on this site before... Any college website would be good.... I am not looking for a conspiracy theory website. I want an unbiased source here.

Now, I have provided many links to you that show that the theory of relativity forbids going the speed of light or faster and multiple people have shown you how and why this is.

You contradicted yourself in your last post saying that you agree it is impossible then imeddiately after giving an example of how you think it is possible...

So what I would like to see from you now is not just your words... I never just take a persons word for it... I would honestly like to see you back up your claims that you know of a method to go the speed of light or faster... there by proving the special theory of relativity wrong... Yes that is right, I just asked you to prove this theory wrong because that is what you will have to do, to back up your claims.

Thank you. I will be off for the day. That should give you time to assemble the proof of this claim that would prove the special theory of relativity wrong/ I look forward to seeing your links and proof tomorrow. Good day.

peace and love


[edit on 11-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 




As for what would happen where the special theory of relativity applies... I don't know. All I keep picturing in that scenario is a video of what appears to be playing in slow motion, only it is not, it is live streaming... That is assuming we ha a new way to get the signal to earth really fast, the radio waves we use today might take quite a while to get here if we were light years away...

Now I don't know if that is what it would look like, but that is how I picture it anyway.


I also remembering watching Sagan's "Contact" movie and thinking it was pretty neat and deliberating on "what if's ..."


To give you a reasonable idea of what the outside universe would look like when viewed from within a ship travelling at relativistic velocities, go back a couple of pages where I attempted to answer that question by using red and blue shifting ... with all these excellent posts we're getting, it can be so easy to miss one or two !



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Thank you "tauris" for your explanation. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is time lines are just different possibilities or paths that I as one single person in a single universe could take. Each time line ceases to exist at the very next instant when I take the next decision or step or flip the next coin. And I continue in the next time line that has been created at that instant. Therefore I continue as a single being in a single universe simply following the path that I have chosen. There are no other universes for me or for my dentist.
Would you agree?


Good question Rush969 but not quite right ... let's see if we can clarify it a bit better for you.

Time lines are just another way of labelling what many physicists believe to be a valid view (for the time being) of the universe and call it the "Many Worlds" hypothesis, "Multiverse", Parallel Universes and other similar titles.

The basic idea is that whenever an "event" occurs that involves multiple possible outcomes e.g. the tossing of a coin or simply whether you should have corn flakes or toast for breakfast, the "time line" that you're in IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to making the breakfast choice or before the coin stops spinning is the CURRENT time line for YOU.
Lets continue with the coin option, shall we ?

As that coin spins over and over in the air, there is an even likelyhood that it could end up ".s" or "tails". Now this is the point at which YOUR current time line "splits". Actually your current timeline continues and lets say the coin shows ".s". But a NEW timeline splits or branches off from the original time line and in this NEW time line, the coin instead shows "tails"... everything else in both time lines remains IDENTICAL.
The important thing to remember is that BOTH timelines (old and new) exist SIMULTANEOUSLY and that immediately implies that there is a version of YOU in both time lines. Also you need to understand that both time lines (as far as we know) are completely seperate and isolated from each other and in no way can communicate or even know of each others existance.
So, now we have essentially 2 completely identical timelines with the only difference being that in one time line the coin ended up ".s" whilst the other time line the coin ended up "tails".
Bizarre, huh ???? But thats what actually may be happening.

So, just remember that when a time line splits, the original time line doesn't cease to exist, rather you now have 2 time lines moving forward !

Oh, and if you had actually used a die instead of a coin, the original time line would have branched into the original time line plus 5 more ... a total of 6 time lines ... one for each possible outcome of rolling that die.

Then think of all the decisions being made every second of the day and the number of splitting time lines that then in turn split themselves, which then split even further, etc, etc and the imagine simply boggles and fails to comprehend it.

Theoretically then, there are an INFINITE number of versions of YOU ... and ME ... and of everyone else in the world



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Lois
 




Lets suppose a time machine was invented and you wanted to go back in the past to change an event...how much of a ripple effect would it have on the future? The effect could have positive and negative elements and you'd be internally weighing the risks before you ventured into this time travel.


Good point, Lois and very interesting to think about !

Your question is obviously assuming that there is only ONE time line and that any time travelling could only take place down or up that time line.

I've mentioned in many previous posts (and I'm sure others are getting tired of hearing it
) that I believe strongly that nature itself will ABSOLUTELY prohibit any attempt at travelling back in time. But thats just my belief ...

Anyway, lets assume that we could travel back as you suggest, then honestly I see no reason why a time traveller couldn't interact with the time period s/he finds themselves in. If they only made a very small change, then quite possibly any repercussiond arising from that change might just be "damped out" and no noticeable change to the future occurs.
Alternatively, even a small change could start a huge ripple effect that spread forwards thru time like an avalanche and having a massive effect on how the future unfolds ... as opposed to the way it originally unfolded.

In fact, your question reminded me of a scifi time travel book I read many, many years ago ... can't remember the title.

But basically, a time machine gets invented and a bunch of scientists hopps onboard and make a trip back in time to the dinosaur era (approx 65 million years ago).
They understand full well the possible consequences of making a change and that it could affect the future that they return to. So they all exercise extreme caution and all seems to go well. Unfortunately, on the way back to the time machine, one of them without realizing or noticing it, steps on a butterfly and kills it.
When they return to their own time, everything seems to be as it was before they left ... with one major difference ... the English language had never been developed and simply didn't exist !!

Apparently by stepping on that simple butterfly, a ripple effect started that became an avalance further up time. The butterfly died ... as a result the animal that would have eaten that butterfly in turn starved ... and the animal that would have eaten it in turn ate something else ... and so on and so on ... end result NO English language !



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by angrysniper
 


So what I would like to see from you now is not just your words... I never just take a persons word for it... I would honestly like to see you back up your claims that you know of a method to go the speed of light or faster... there by proving the special theory of relativity wrong... Yes that is right, I just asked you to prove this theory wrong because that is what you will have to do, to back up your claims.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]


Allow me to answer this question. Good old Wikipedia will provide you with a lot of reliable links in its article on Alcubierre drive. Short summary: the special relativity is only valid for a flat space-time, whereas we are considering here significantly curved space-times. In some sense, special relativity is never valid, it's an abstraction conveniently used for the study of weakly curved space-time regions (like the one near Earth). Yet there is no local superluminal travel in general relativity either, but Alcubierre drive provides a non-local illusion of superluminal travel. How? By isolating an object (spaceship) inside a small universe (spacetime bubble), then "warping" our universe in a way that this "bubble universe" appears to arrive to the destination, and subsequently extracting the spaceship from the "bubble universe". Note that during the travel the spaceship is casually isolated from our universe, i.e. it cannot interact with it and create all these nasty paradoxes related to FTL.

Alcubierre "bubble" is just a solution to the equation of GR, nothing more. It may or may not exist in reality. There are many other solutions with strange properties. Why do we care about these "chimera" solutions? Because the history of science shows us that many "strange" solutions to the equations were in fact predictions of important physical realities detected later in experiments (many elementary particles were discovered this way).

But anyway, Alcubierre drive is now considered somewhat obsolete, the new toy is the Krasnikov tube which should be much easier to build and more robust. And a pair of Krasnikov tubes is a ready-to-use time machine.

There are of course a lot of controversies around these hypothetical devices. Many scientists think they are impossible. Due to the Hawking paradox (lack of time tourists in our timeline) I think they may be right. But I certainly hope some kind of time travel is possible because it would bring us to the point of technological singularity when we won't need to invent anything anymore but can benefit from the information received from the future (this or other timelines). I would certainly like to stand next to the first constructed time machine to see what comes out of it!



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by veles77
 


With all do respect to your efforts... And I do respect them, because you have shown that there is something to these claims... Good for you..

But is there any info out there for me to look at besides a wiki article? I ask because as I am sure you know wiki can be edited by anyone...

Anyway, thank you for explaining to me how this works, and not just expecting me to take your word for it.

With this info in front of me I must say, I see what my other buddy meant when they said it is possible but it is not possible.You see it was not being explained to me, the other person was just saying that "it was impossible but it is possible" I get it now and thank you for helping me to understand.




[edit on 11-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Guys, guys, guys .... (gimme_some_truth and angrysniper)

I've been following your shall we say "spirited" exchanges for a while and decided now might be a good time to throw my 2 cents worth in ... hope you don't mind.

I personally would love for the Alcubierre Drive to be proved to be one possible solution to FTL travel and yes, I do get the basic idea of how it's supposed to function by maintaining a region or bubble of "normal space" that would contain the ship and crew ... and then compress space infront of the bubble whilst expanding space behind the bubble.
As far as I know this wouldn't contradict Special Relativity as space is allowed to expand superluminary and would effectively "carry" the bubble (and ship) along with it ... thereby elimnating the restrictions on accelerating the mass up to and beyond light speed.

In it's time this was considered a strong contender and one that could be imagined as "theoretically possible" in some future time.

HOWEVER ... newer research now seems to indicate strongly that the Alcubierre Drive concept, even though theoretically possible, is actually seriously flawed.
Alcubierre originally came up with the concept by combining classical thinking along with the ideas of general relativity but apparently excluding the effects of quantum mechanics ... which now appears to have been a serious oversight.

Recently, Stefano Finazzi and others at the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy reworked the concept taking into account the effects of quantum mechanics and found that one immediate problem was that the inside of the bubble would be filled with Hawking radiation, making life rather "uncomfortable" for anyone within it.

Another major problem was a property of a quantum field called the renormalised stress-energy tensor which should be well-behaved under normal circumstances. But in the front wall of Alcubierre's bubble travelling at superluminal speeds, Finazzi et al found that the renormalised stress-energy tensor grows exponentially.
That strongly implies that such a bubble would be unstable.
So, from a promising begining, it now looks increasingly likely, barring some future major breakthrough, that the Alcubierre's warp drive may be impossible.

www.technologyreview.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


You are more than welcome to jump in... Is it spirited between the two of us? I did not realize... I just enjoy debating with opposing viewpoints. I do apologize to anyone that may have been offended by my words. I certainly did not mean to come across as spirited.

Anyway, I was just trying to understand the basics of how it would work if it was possible. Now that those have been pointed out I am prepared to drop that and get back on topic.

I do agree, and as you have pointed out now ( a few times I think) the theory behind it is seriously, I guess, I am just ready to move on now that I understand ( some what) the basics of how it may work... if it was possible...

That said, I was thinking last night and found myself curious about WHY time slows down the faster you go. I mean, as you know I understand that it slows down... I get it but in a way I don't I would be interested to hear a bit more about that ( It would help get things back on track too)



[edit on 11-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I enjoyed your thread good info to set aside for future reff. keep posting thanks



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Thank you, I hope my humble contribution helped to sort out some of this confusion.

As to the links, you can always find the original articles on arxiv.org but they are written in a highly cryptic scientific language


Miguel Alcubierre's original paper can be found here. I will search for a more popular introduction to this matter and post a link on this thread.

As to Wikipedia, I think it's a great source of information, and the reason is: it can be edited by anyone. Sometimes articles there have some errors, but they will be quickly corrected by more informed members of the community, and the article will eventually approach the "most accepted" view on the subject. Also, most articles provide useful links to the original works and research on the subject.

===

As to the impossibility of Alcubierre drive and other warp drives (post by tauristercus): this is an ongoing discussion, and none of the arguments seems final to me, because we still lack a consistent theory of quantum gravity (at least in "public" science). All warp drive designs including Krasnikov tubes are classical in nature, they don't consider any quantum effects. Most opposing claims of impossibility are quantum in nature, they use concepts of Hawking radiation and other effects which have never been observed, let alone measured. And, of course, they formulate them in terms of low-speed quantum mechanics known to us today which still cannot incorporate gravity in any consistent way.

This is like a blind talking to a mute, this should stop, the governments must finally give money to investigate these most crucial questions which can save us centuries of research.... though of course they won't listen....



new topics

top topics



 
163
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join