It's my understanding that upside down is a relative state of being.  Outer space lacks this relativity.  Am I on the right track?
207240
yes, you are right- the ideas of up and down are indeed relative. On earth, we have a wonderous and magical force called gravity- which solves the problem easily as we are best one way up really. so technically, neither you nor the paper is upside down. It does however make sense to assume in such a situation that the paper is at fault and turn it round, rather than yourself. Or does that pose another question?
665705
theoretically it is, as we consider the earth to be a round sphere. it is not  a sphere though, thus gravity is less at the equator, or Himalaya, and more at the poles. one can calculate the difference if they want, if we know the exact distance from the center of the earth to the point where we are. going further we would have to take into account the lack or excess of mass due to the landscape (mountains, and/or lakes, canyons) at the area. going further, we would have to take into account the position of other planets, as their mass interferes. a bit further we have to take into account the speed of the rotation of the earth, as it is not constant, and a bit further, the angle of the rotation. a bit further, we have to add the mass that is being added as material from space falls on earth. the list can go on and on, one thing is certain: gravity exists, (well, maybe not inside my head,) but it is not exactly the same everywhere, and it is not exactly the same all the time
158901
i dont' know what causes the rotation of an orbiting planet, but the moon would definitely have gravity even if it didn't spin.  that dude was full of crap.  if anything, the spin would cause things to fly off.
661765
Your understanding of relativity is wrong.\n\nYou cannot even accelerate to the speed of light, let alone beyond it. Relativity predicts that infinite enrgy would be required to accelerate a mass to the speed of light. IT makes no predictions that would make travel backwards in time possible.
601489
Don't you think that relativity dictates that those two things are the same?\nEdited my old answer after thinking-\nmy answer is:\nIt doesn't make a difference if I say I'm going 65 miles/hr or if I say everything else is and I'm going 0.  For all intents, purposes, and consequences, it's the same.  It's the same in this case, frame of reference is crucial in measurement, and so essentially, there is no difference in macro scale physics.\nGeneral theory of relativity wise, I'm still not sure about.  It seems like there might be serious consequences for this idea due to the speed of light/space relationship.  It also seems like I'm not really qualified to do those calculations, and the people who are could very well have already thought of this.  They are rather bright.\nSo my rating for viability of the idea is: (drum roll)\n23%
68611
I had an out of body experience.  I floated above my body and watched my friends try to wake me up.  They were yelling at me to breathe and I was alright after a short time.  When I came down, I realized what a low existence we live in.  Reality is a very low existence.  It's hard to put in words.....)(
74794
how can something without a boundary, like the universe,  have a center?\nand yes, time is subjective. basically i think it's only a measurement of life.
7236
i read your blog and nothing anyone can tell you here could be more satisfying than your theory.  you're going to get people either just saying one or the other, or explaining to you what the big bang is or why god is important.  the way you integrated everything in your head is good, and you should be happier with that than any answer from either side anyone may give you.  i agree, except my opinions lean more toward the science side because of my classes in biology and such.  i like where you said god got bored, that's a good way of looking at it.  i think even after the big bang, he played less of a role as people think, like maybe he guided along evolution or something, created that first spark of life and plays with mutations here and there, little experiments.  You'd probably have to take more bio courses to realize how much evidence there actually is for evolution and how smoothly it goes and stuff, but for now, your idea will work better than anyone from either side.\n\noh, as far as your latest blog thing, you would get stuck in the center of the earth, not go all the way through and pop out the other side, because gravity is measured from the center of an object..  Gravity would decrease as you went down, until you got to the center, where you would be weightless, but you wouldn't be able to 'fall' back up, because you would be pulled to the center again.  Everyone on all parts of the earth experience gravity to the same degree.
394771
There is no "anti-clockwise" in the universe.  If you look at anything rotating from the other side, it goes the other way.
305379
Well, that depends upon how one looks at MOVEMENT.  This is to say that though we tend to understand movement in relation to distance, to other objects, to speed, and so forth, when comparing movement in relation to the universe, the one all unifying factor of that which exists in a defined reality, actual movement becomes sort of relative, taking direction with it.\n\nBefore I pick out inherent directions of movement, let me explain a little of this subjective relativity.  What if I were to instead ask, "How much does the planet Earth weigh?"  This question similarly depends upon how one looks at the variable of weight.  See, if I ask how much a frying pan weighs or how much a barbell weighs, we can automatically presume that I am talking about its weight on Earth, how it is affected by the pull of the Earth's gravity.  So, how do we judge the pull of the Earth's gravity against the Earth itself?  Some would say you can't.  Others would maintain that the Earth itself weighs nothing, just floating in space.  Still others would determine the mass of the Earth against the pull of the sun's gravity.  Still others could match the whole solar system's weight against the pull of other systems or the pull or push from the center of the galaxy, thereafter attributing the very tiny percentage of mass for which the Earth is responsible in the equation.  Other folks would simply conceptually add up the mass of the planet and imagine what that mass would weigh if it were a great big ball sitting on our planet.  A few creative folks might pit our planet's mass against a gas giant like Jupiter, determining it's weight against that pull of gravity instead of the sun's, as if we were a theoretical super-satellite (moon) of another planet.  \n\nAll these subjective, objective, and conceptual differences come into play when we are talking about things greater than the finite.  Similar questions plague your query about movement.  So, there are not so many answers as there are different things to consider and different ways to look at it.  Here are a few options...\n\n1)  Relative to the sun, the Earth revolves.\n\n2)  Relative to its axis, the Earth rotates.\n\n3)  Relative to the plane of the solar system, the Earth wobbles on its axis.\n\n4)  Relative to a line between it’s own equator and a fixed point on the sun nearest us, the Earth tilts.\n\n5)  Relative in comparison to a planet that always has the same side facing the sun, like Mercury, or in other words, relative points on the surface of the Earth and the surface of the sun, the Earth is in an exaggerated or accelerated spin or spiral away from this presumed connector.\n\n6)  Relative to the galaxy, our solar system moves out from center in the Milky Way, the Earth moving with it.\n\n7)  Relative to other galaxies, our galaxy's mass gets caught in the collective gravitational pull of the mass of others, adjusting the direction and speed in which we travel as a galaxy and thereby affecting our solar system with Earth in it.\n\n8)  Relative to other stars in our galaxy, the Earth's proximity to the sun and small size seems more like a shake or a flicker than a revolution.\n\n9)  Relative to a center of the universe in a single big bang theory, everything, including us, moves on a vector out from center.\n\n10)  Relative to Einstein's use of LAMDA in an equation meant to unify his two theories of relativity; everything also collapses in toward center slightly in a very precise balance against the movement outward.\n\n11)  Relative to a multiple big bang theory, everything moves out from the last center of the last big bang, which in turn was already in a generalized outbound pattern from a previous big bang.\n\n12)  Relative to our branch in the implied spiral of the Milky Way Galaxy, a number of systems are moving in a sort of half-parabola ever slowing.\n\n13)  Relative to the idea of a unified greatness, like a universe, a single,
405620
I truly believe everyone has it backwards.  What if our "linear history" is actually severe misinterpretation of the data?  What if there really are “Earth Age Civilization Cycles” in which what we consider to be our historical “primordial beginning” is merely the Post-catastrophic aftermath to a former global technoculture that was wiped off the face of the Earth via a celestial onslaught, and what if the post-catastrophic survivors were catapulted into a “State of Neobarbarism” to begin the slow and gradual process of re-civilization all over again?  What if there have been several of these cycles?  What if terrestrial civilization has always been recurrent and cyclic with the development of several periodic global technocultures responsible for the amazing and titanic stone artifacts of antiquity littered throughout the world?  What if these highly advance and technological bygone Earthly civilizations were destroyed by some recurrent cosmocataclysm like clockwork every 12,000 years just as Plato claimed?  What if Earth was the original "seed" from which life dispersed “into” the Solar System, “into” the Galaxy and “into” the Universe?  What if “extraterrestrials” are merely returning to their home planet, Earth, and these beings are actually the descendents and/or creations from these utterly ancient global technocultures that once thrived upon the Earth?  What if the “Grays” were originally engineered by former human scientists from these former technocultures? What if the Grays are biocyborgs preprogrammed to collect and harvest genetic material and human DNA for the sole purpose to “reactivate” intelligent life on Earth in the Post-Cosmocataclysmic Period, a sort of “Noah’s Ark Project”?  What if other “alien species” were actually engineered hybrids from these utterly ancient scientific labs of past Earth Age civilizations for various purposes?  What if some revolted against their human creators and took refuge in space to escape the recurrent cosmocataclysm?  What if other planetary civilizations in the galaxy and Universe were actually seeded by us, e.g. by our ancestors from these extinct Earthly global technocultures?  What if they seeded life on Mars at one time, but the cosmocataclysm that destroyed our advanced Earthly ancestors also destroyed the civilization on Mars?  Yes, I truly believe everyone has it backwards.\n\nThe inception of human life requires hundreds of millions of sperm in the Universe of the Womb for just “one” sperm to successfully impregnate the one lone egg and bring forth life.  Could not this also be true on a macrocosmic level in the massive Womb of the Universe where countless stars are actually “required” to bring forth one star with life?  Hence, it may be that Earth is that one special seed of life?  This may be the exception and not the rule.  Indeed, I do believe everyone has it backwards.
246214
You and fly are in the moving car, so both of you are at rest relative to each other. So when the fly goes from back seat to front or from front to back, it is faster than you, bacause both of you were at rest within the car.\n\nFor example, we all are in the moving earth, so all our speed is relative to earth, we do not take into consideration the earth's speed. I hope I am able to make it clear.
95203
this is where relativity comes into play. It depends from what viewpoint. speed is always relative to a "fixed" point (which might not be so "fixed" after all). get my drift?
92036
His definition is a little odd, and does not seem to follow from his example (which is more about motion than position on the earth).  Technically, his motion relative to stationary students would make time pass at a different rate according to all that Einstein stuff (though there's no way he could ever notice the tiny difference).  But that would be true without any reference to the earth and the sun.  Is he trying to make a different point -- that his days would be longer because the sun would set later for him because he is walking toward the west where the sun sets?  If so, he's right that his days (defined as revolving around the Earth's axis) would be longer, but that would not mean time was moving at a different speed for him; it would only mean that the sun would set a little later from his visual perspective -- just like you can gain or lose hours when you cross time zones in an airplane; you reset your watch, but that has nothing to do with the passage of time.  Unless you are defining time only by calendars and clocks and common agreement.
154644
What is this gravity that you mention?  :P\n\nGood point tho, funny how it didn't exist until very recently in our history.  *hugs*
206382
Remember Einstein, It is all relative to the observer. You and the mirror would be traveling at the same speed so your observational world would be the same. Now if somebody was traveling with you slightly less than the speed of light, they would see a empty mirror. It is a paradoxical question just as if you where to travel the universe for 5 yrs at the speed of light, then return to earth, you would have only aged the 5 years, but all of your friends would have long ago died of old age waiting your return.Interesting, No? Good luck and happy perplexing.
130138
The Coriolis effect. If the Earth were not rotating, the effect would be a mysterious "fifth force" with no physical explanation. See the source for details. \nAccelerating frames are absolutely determined. The above references to relativity theory are completely incorrect; Newtonian theory equates frames with constant velocity, Einstein equates an accelerating frame with a local curvature (gravitation). This is all the two theories have to do with the badly referenced quotations above.\nThe amount of pseudoscience and bad science on these forums is strange, given the amount of knowledge freely available over the internet.