I'm curious to know would I see the mechanism in my life? When I searched on it, I found below links interesting, does anyone have a better suggestion?\n\nhttp://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=561\n\nhttp://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/455/1/Iranian-Einstein%3F\n\nhttp://extremetechnology.blogspot.com/2006/03/macroscopic-tranversable-spacewarp.html\n\nhttp://www.stardrivedevice.com/links.html
134026
Space is very vast and the distances are in the order of millions of light years to the farthest reaches of the universe. Even if we learn to travel at the speed of light, it will be impossible to travel for millions of years for one person or one generation. Some have proposed that there may be holes in the fabric of space-time which would enable us to reach such places without going throught the distance in between. This remains to be proven.
589229
Well, it is a fantastic concept! Also, even if this could happen, it would take billions, if not billions of years!\nAnother way is that who and why do we accept the time direction as we do now? Because it fits, us! Well, sometimes this concept is reversed! SO, time could go the other way or go faster or slower, but this only in certain moments, yet!
294755
I find the concept of an event horizon with a singularity behind it where spacetime curvature becomes infinite fascinating. The idea of spaghettification is intriguing (and a bit frightening!) too. And although scientists reassure us that artificial black holes would be perfectly safe, creating one seems...well, crazy. On the whole, however, I find the whole concept fascinating and wish I had time to take an advanced physics or astronomy class to learn more about it.\n\nI'm afraid I don't understand the other commentator's God reference, though. What black holes have to do with God, or at least the Christian God, is completely beyond me. Last time I checked, the Bible said nothing whatsoever about them.
568245
Hi NY NY 2\n\nQuite a hodge podge of answers above.  let me see if I can clear some misconceptions up for you:\n\nFirst, the evidence. About 8 years ago two separate independent groups announced measurements of the brightness of supernova at a redshift z=1.  (Cosmologists use redshift factor "z" to show how far away something is in space-time by designating how far light from the object is redshifted by the time it arrives at earth.  The redshift is due to the expansion of the intervening space.  Redshift z=1 corresponds to a distance where the wavelength of light has been redshifted to double its original wavelength.).  These results indicated that the universal expansion was accelerating.  Since that time the results have been confirmed, and supporting evidence was found in the detailed mapping of the microwave background.\n\nSurprisingly (you might think) it is very easy to modify the equations which describe the universe's evolution to make the expansion accelerate.  The reason for this is that Einstein originally included such a factor in his early equations.\n\nBriefly, the equations for the universe at large scale talk about gravity and pressures.  Gravity tries to collapse the universe together and pressures push it apart (roughly).  When Einstein came up with his model (1915), everyone thought the universe was static (so called "steady state"), ie it didn't change over time.  So he included a cosmological constant to counteract the collapsing action of gravity and keep the universe steady.  This cosmological constant "pushes outwards" to counter gravities inward push.  By 1928 Hubble's catalogue had convinced people the universe was expanding (not steady) and physicists realised the cosmological constant wasn't required.  Einstein called its original inclusion "his biggest blunder".  It seems that call was wrong.  :o)\n\nNow the cosmological constant is coming back.  To describe an expanding universe you stick it back in and change the values for the density of normal mass-energy and the cosmological constant, and voila - an expanding universe.  The question then becomes: what does this constant physically represent?\n\nAt present cosmologists use the term "dark energy" to refer to a number of possible culprits.  From the equations we know the properties of this dark energy very well.  Some physicists link it to action of the quantum vacuum, some label it "quintessence" (the "fifth force").  \n\nIt is *not* (as suggested above) dark matter or antimatter.  Dark matter is invoked to explain galactic dynamics: galaxies tend to rotate in a fashion which suggests they have more mass than we can actually see.  This missing mass is presumed to be dark (which is why we can't see it).  Dark matter would act like ordinary matter in Einstein's equaitons, and so can't produce an accelerated expansion.  Antimatter also behaves gravitationally like ordinary matter and so it can't be responsible for accelerated expansion either.\n\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Chicken
149837
'Flatland' must be a very exciting story. I wish I have read it.\n--a 2d world surely is a more interesting place compared to a 1d world. Roughly speaking, the added options would be 'left', 'right', 'up', 'down', which are far more entertaining than the 'forward' and 'backward' of the 1d space. \n-- the 3d world easily beats a 2d world and needs few comments. we get 'depth', just to name one thing we would miss in the 2d world. there are many others, no doubt.\n-- a 4d world would be an awesome place. before else, the question is what do we put on the 4th dimension. whatever would be it must have the dimension of space. so it can be time times velocity. let's say we neglect what velocity would mean and just focus on time. now things are going to heat up. what can we do with time, if we are able to use it just as we use the ordinary space? surely we would like to move forward and backward in time. still, I would not think we would be able to see .... ohhh wait a second!! this is really cool! I think I just got your idea of seeing 'inside and out, of every object and event in the entire univers'. yes, it must be this, because we would be able to travel in time, along the 4th direction, and we would be able to see things as they evolve; suddenly appearing in what was before an apparently empty space, turning into real objects and dissapear eventually. hehe I like it
520535
NO WAY, it's one of the most interesting things in our universe. i would desribe the effects of it when someone gets close to it. or, exactly how one is created! black holes are one of the most fascinating things to me
226835
EINSTIEN once said that he can't travel in time but one can SEE THE FUTURE . he said that if such a lense can be made that  it can allow us to see the edge of the EARTH in the prescence of  a   powerful laser the affect shall be like: one endsup seeing himself and in a totaly other situation and thus he proposed a theory on this concept of time travel\n\nbut we have to  just cross the speed of light ....... to have this another theory in action\n         this theory states that one can travel in time when he travels the  7times faster speed of light, and   it is surely going to take a lot of time to prove or disprove this theory ................as EINSTEIN could never prove the previous one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
200293
there is a design for a "starship" that IS theoretically feasible.\n\nit is known as the "Bussard RamJet" and you might look it up in the wikipedia.com ( it is also mentioned in Carl Sagan's "Cosmos".)\n\nthis ship can theoretically travel at 10 % the speed of light ( i.e 18,600 mi/sec .)  it is technically possible to build it NOW if the motivation ( and funds) existed.  \n\nif you traveled on this ship, "relativistic effects" would slow your aging in comparison with the earth.  In other words, when you return, hundreds of years may have elapsed in relation to only a few of your own.  because of this, any trip must be considered "one way" in the social sense.  \n\nto answer your question,  the technology is here but no one is trying becuase the time paradox is too real.  besides, we wouldnt know where to go anyway.  ( it would be hit or miss ).  the landing part is quite simple.... the hard part is getting there !
286241
As I have told every one else who asks this, yes, it is scientifically plausible, but whether we would be able to successfully use this technology is indeed questionable. As we have seen on the show, all of the technology is so far beyond our level of comprehension and understanding, as Jacob/Selmak was trying to explain to Jack in Exodus, when he wanted him to leave the Mothership with the Tok'ra, and he was right about how far beyond us the technology is. For example, in Tangent when they attempted to modify a death glider, even Carter admitted that they didn't completely understand the physics of the ship, and as Jacob Selmak stated:\n"And, what were you thinking, anyway? Retrofitting a death glider? You should have known better. The technology you're screwing around with is way over your head!......you've got to learn to take small steps. You can't just slap a US Air Force sticker on the side of a death glider and call it yours. Advancement like that has to be earned."\n\nAnyway back to your original question, as I said earlier, it's really only a matter of science; take for example the Asgard beaming technology and the Goa'uld transport rings. Transport rings, when in position, transmit all matter within their circular formation to another pair of rings at a different location, utilizing a conduit of bright energy. If there is a person or object on the receiving end, the rings can exchange the two simultaneously. Asgard transporters on the other hand, use energy beams to dematerialize their subjects and send their energy forms away at near-light speeds to the designated coordinates.
523704
*sigh* Another debatable query enslaved to the limited senses of us mortals, yet forced in all its calamity by our fascination. Here goes.\n\nEinstein shook the fundaments of the Scientific Community when he introduced his Theory Of Relativity and Special Theory Of Relativity back in 1905. He was considered everything from Nostradamus to Jesus. This pinnacle of his life was not attained in mere pondering. Let me expalin to you this fragment of his theory.\n\n  In theoretical suppositions, the space-time connoction bear themselves in alliance. Any change inflicted on one dimension is prone to affect another.\n\n When we say that we will only age a bit, while the Earth has conquered years and decades, we mean to say, that, time being relative to every individual, along with its flow, may hasten up, if we start to function at a velocity of extremes.\n\n If time IS relative (No humane way to confirm), then a higher velocity achieved could result in a hastened flow in the fluid of the "Fourth Dimension" of time. Such relativity was all that he wished to make us understand.\n\n As far as the aging is concerned, provided that we have armour to protect us from the friction effects of such a speed, we are going to age alright. Since our molecules are being relative to the molecules of the rest of the universe, they are not going to change much. Yet RELATIVELY they will alter a decade or more (backwards)!\n\n*sniff* Einstein, I salute you!
3575
Well, I certainly wouldn't have to worry anymore about whether or not I turned the coffee maker off! Seriously, if the Earth stopped spinning on it's axis, there would be much larger factors at work & I'd be looking for the quickest way to get out of what was going to become an extremely unstable area of space! After all, assuming that I had a craft capable of long range travel, it might be left up to myself & whomever else might also be out on other missions to find a way to carry on the human race :)\n\nWhen I read the question the first thing I thought of was, "Pause.......BOOM!"
44857
I too would be veeerrrrry interested in seeing some evidence for this claim from a non-creationist source. I keep an eye out for this sort of thing out professional as well as personal interest and I can't recall seeing anything like it.\n\nRoger are you absolutely certan that you haven't misundertsood the phase velocity experiments of Wang? They were done around that time (published 2000 IIRC). But they never shattered the speed of light or anything like that, no  did Wang et al ever make such a claim.\n\nTo help you out Roger, folow the link below? Is that what you arehtinkng of? If so you have misunderstood the results entirely.\n\n" Wang et al. (2000), who produced a laser pulse in atomic cesium gas with a group velocity of 310+/- 5 C. In each case, the observed superluminal propagation is not at odds with causality, and is instead a consequence of classical interference between its constituent frequency components in a region of anomalous dispersion (Wang et al. 2000)."\n\nIOW the speed of light wasn't exceeded by a particle, massless or not. It was the speed of the frequency change wihtin the medium that was 300 times faster than light. Perhaps the easiest way for a layman to understand this is to imagine one of those Newton's Cradle's toys. (see link 2). \n\nWhen you let go of one ball the motion is tranferred through the two intervening balls to the other end, causing that ball to fly up. That motion is is transmitted at near enough the speed of sound. IOW when the dropped ball hits the suspended balls the motion is passed along at the speed of sound. \n\nBut, and this is important, the ball itself wasn't travelling at the speed of sound. Nor did the ball on the end fly out at Mach 1 just because the motion was tranferred at MAch 1. The motion of the drooped ball was transferred at Mach 1, but at no stage was the ball or anyhting else actually travelling at Mach 1.\n\nWang's experiments did approximately the same thing using photons rather than metal balls. By some very clever work they managed to induce a phase change within the Cesium medium. In essence the Cesium atoms became the middle balls in newtons cradle. When light  hit an atom on one side it caused a phase change that was then passed on to the next atom, then the next and so forth, all at 300*C. But it was the phase change that was moving at that speed, not photons, not even electrons, just a phase change.
206147
Well, I've read the book of Ezekiel several times--only about 25 or so--and I have to tell you, the description doesn't sound like a UFO to me.\n\nMoreover, the wheels within the wheels need not be rotors.  In fact, as I read the description, they probably are no such thing.  Even making the assumption (which I reject) that the description is actually that of a mechanism, the description of the whirling wheels is much more compatible with a multidimensional gyro being projected into a 3-dimensional image.\n\nAlso, understand that the description is the best that Ezekiel could be induced to manage.  Human minds can only stretch so far.  What you or I would describe this as might be very different.\n\nShades of Erich vonDaniken...  for those of us who remember "Chariots of the Gods" from days of old...
619814
the theories of time travel are extremely complex. it is often mistaken that one can use radiation or electro-magnetics to warp space into  an alternate reality. one of the popular theories of time travel is only from a certain point. what I'm saying is that we will not be able to visit this time from the future. \n\na few theories are;\n\n1: warping the very fabric of space, then accelerating to near the speed of light through the folds. the speed would then turn you body into pure energy, eventually reformulating somewhere in the future. Problems: 1; to warp space fabric would require more energy than it takes to make a black hole. 2; this is my personal theory.\n\n2: do you know how a worm-hole works? if not, ignore this section. but take an opening of a worm-hole and some how place by a point of high gravity (a neutron star). while at the same time directing negative energy at both openings in order to keep them from collapsing into a black hole. time slows down in super-high gravity, therefore if you throw yourself into the opening with no gravity, you'll wind up in the past. and vise-versa. Problems; 1; worm-hole technology is beyond our reach at this time. 2; worm-holes are flickering in and out of existence every infinitely small spec of time, therefore it is difficult to isolate one.\n\nas for what time travel exactly is, i could go one for about three pages.\n\nI'm a nerd. \n\nStargazer.
587823
Has anyone notices that the answer given by "d_1167" has absolutely nothing to do with the question which was asked?\nIn fact, his answer was not even his own, he merely copy-pasted it from a web site and then did not even have the decency to site it,\nhttp://education.vsnl.com/karnik/velocity_of_light.pdf\nor the HTML version,\nhttp://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=education.vsnl.com%2Fkarnik%2Fvelocity_of_light.pdf&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&x=wrt&u=education.vsnl.com/karnik/velocity_of_light.pdf&d=FNtzZDmtMwG4&icp=1&.intl=us\n\n\nAnyway, to get back to the question at hand,\nI would have to lean somewhat towards the direction of the answer given by "NotEasilyFooled".\nThe speed at which the effects of cutting the rope on planet M would not reach the 2nd planet (N) until at least 1 year after it happened since no information can travel fast than light.\n\nSince the rope is massless (but we assume it to act as a normal rope anyway), there is no reason to think that it would necesarily fall the the surface of of planet N except for the fac that there was a force of tension in the rope when it was cut, pulling it towards the surface of planet N.  But we already assumed it was massless (or at least "weigthless")....applying a force to a massless object puts us in a rather awkward position (F = ma).
451158
This theory is formulated by lot of laws and was given by a theory of relativity in which Albert Einstein says that if two things travel in opposite direction with or greater than the speed of light you could look into the future..\nbut it sounds to be impossible ...\nwhile some scientists say that if a object goes near a black hole and a small torque is given to that it starts rotating at a speed nearly equal to light...\n           you can refer theory of relativity for more answers...
424569
Oscar. You have written too much. This 125m tower stuff does not matter compared to r=6.38*10^6. Why is this talk about 1.00 km and angle theta? See what “zipper” above says. Besides I answer your last question << Why is the trajectory of the cannonball not parabolic?>>. Why should it be if both you and Newton demand it to be circular? Assume that V1 of cannonball is the 1st cosmic speed corresponding to a circular track. Let V2 be > than V1, then you receive an oval track. Take V3 > than V2, then the track may become parabolic, so that cannonball would never return back to the cannon to linger out among planets and stars. If you are intrigued calculate a set of velocities and corresponding orbits of the cannonball. If cannon is not available consider a football! I like your inventive wits – to be honest!