What is the biggest mystery of our universe?

[surreptitious57]

The reason as to why matter exists is because anti matter and matter do not cancel out precisely
Reverse time travel is not possible in this Universe at the classical level but might be so in others
But this is not a given at the quantum level since some particles in theory can travel back in time
And the biggest mystery of the Universe is one so unknown its own existence is not acknowledged

[Arising_uk]

...
Well, Einsteins relativity is treated like science, and not "hypothesis". ...

That's because it made some predictions that showed it to be true.

[Blaggard]

Well, Einsteins relativity is treated like science, and not "hypothesis". And according to his theory, time travel is possible. (Which I may explain later.) Doesn't mean Einstein's relativity is true, but if it was.

Yeah great possible does not mean proved. And Einstein never said time travel was possible anyway, not in such terms. he couldn't rule it out, but you should not then rule it in just 'cause he didn't know.

I can't rule out that we are all space Weevils infecting the minds of the great sand lump hammer trojan custard lord. But I don't think it is wise to rule things in on the basis of what I don't know or can hence not rule out.

Nothing in science is true if it was it would not be science.

Nothing in reality is absolutely true either. But then some idiots would beg to differ.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Well, Einsteins relativity is treated like science, and not "hypothesis". And according to his theory, time travel is possible. (Which I may explain later.) Doesn't mean Einstein's relativity is true, but if it was.

Yeah great possible does not mean proved. And Einstein never said time travel was possible anyway, not in such terms. he couldn't rule it out, but you should not then rule it in just 'cause he didn't know.

I can't rule out that we are all space Weevils infecting the minds of the great sand lump hammer trojan custard lord. But I don't think it is wise to rule things in on the basis of what I don't know or can hence not rule out.

Nothing in science is true if it was it would not be science.

Nothing in reality is absolutely true either. But then some idiots would beg to differ.

I don't see how Einstein didn't believe in time travel.

Examine this closely.

Imagine a scenario with a man on earth, with his watch set at 3:15.

Very far away, a man is in a space shuttle that can go lightspeed instantaneously.

Both of their watches are 3:15.

Then, the man in the shuttle goes light speed.

According to Einstein and modern science, the craft travels at 186,000 miles per second.
For ease of understanding, we'll just say from his point of view, when he get's to Earth it took about 1 second for him, in the shuttle.
So his watch says 3:16, when he arrives at Earth.

According to theory, time outside the ship would have stood still, from the perspective of the ship.
So, he should expect his watch to read 3:16. and the guy on Earth's watch to read 3:15.

Right? WRONG.

You see, the theory also says the speed of light is finite, 186,000 miles per second.
So there would have been a delay for the shuttle to reach Earth, even from the guy on Earth's perspective.
The guy standing on Earth's watch would NOT read 3:15, but 3:15.05 or some other value.

So, upon stepping on Earth and exiting his shuttle, according to Einstein's theory, the guy in the shuttle magically enters an alternate universe, a parallel dimension, where they guy on Earth's watch magically reads 3:15 (instead of 3:15.05 as it should in the original reality.)

According to this, it would seem that all one needs to do to travel backwards in time, is simply nudge a little faster than the speed of light, and you get to go as far backward in time as you please.

After careful thought, Einstein's theory begins to feel at home comfortable in the land of LSD and rabbit holes.

And thus, if approaching the event horizon of a black hole, light could slingshot using the gravitation vortex to exceed 186,000 miles per second, causing backwards time travel around it. This would serve no purpose, because the black hole would still exist, for a while. The light would swirl around, continuing to accelerate and eventually reach the point in time before the black hole existed, the light would likely move in a random direction at this point, or no direction, going inside itself into another dimension, possibly because it went so far back in time it cascaded itself from the shrinking of the universe. allowing it to time travel back in time, providing black holes exist and that it entered the surface of the black hole at just the right tangent in order to maximize it's swirling ability.

The big question is, what is the light we see? Is it a fake because the real light is in another dimension? If someone traveled lightspeed, it would imply that they became two separate consciousnesses, drifting further and further apart the longer they travel.

[Ginkgo]

Well, Einsteins relativity is treated like science, and not "hypothesis". And according to his theory, time travel is possible. (Which I may explain later.) Doesn't mean Einstein's relativity is true, but if it was.

Yeah great possible does not mean proved. And Einstein never said time travel was possible anyway, not in such terms. he couldn't rule it out, but you should not then rule it in just 'cause he didn't know.

I can't rule out that we are all space Weevils infecting the minds of the great sand lump hammer trojan custard lord. But I don't think it is wise to rule things in on the basis of what I don't know or can hence not rule out.

Nothing in science is true if it was it would not be science.

Nothing in reality is absolutely true either. But then some idiots would beg to differ,

I don't see how Einstein didn't believe in time travel.

Examine this closely.

Imagine a scenario with a man on earth, with his watch set at 3:15.

Very far away, a man is in a space shuttle that can go lightspeed instantaneously.

Both of their watches are 3:15.

Then, the man in the shuttle goes light speed.

According to Einstein and modern science, the craft travels at 186,000 miles per second.
For ease of understanding, we'll just say from his point of view, when he get's to Earth it took about 1 second for him, in the shuttle.
So his watch says 3:16, when he arrives at Earth.

According to theory, time outside the ship would have stood still, from the perspective of the ship.
So, he should expect his watch to read 3:16. and the guy on Earth's watch to read 3:15

Right? WRONG.

It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object to the speed of light so in theory this is not possible. However, one does not have to travel at light speed or close to the speed of light to observe time dilation. You can observe this in a passenger jet flying between two countries if you set up an experiment with atomic clocks. Basically, this means that if I spent 30 years of my life as an airline pilot and I had a twin brother exactly my age, then at the end of my career I would be younger than my twin. Probably in the order of 1/1000 of a second younger. If aircraft flew at 80% the speed of light then the difference would be significant over a 30 year period. My twin would be an old man and I would still be quite young.

Time inside a close to light speed aircraft doesn't appear to pass slowly. It appears to pass normally for the occupants. Time on earth doesn't stand still, nor does it appear to stand still for people on earth.


P.S.

And no I haven't done the calculations. I'm just giving you a rough idea. It is possible to actually do the calculations.

[Arising_uk]

Nothing in reality is absolutely true either.

Is this an absolute truth?

But then some idiots would beg to differ.

And some idiots don't understand Logic but can still do Maths.

[Ginkgo]

You see, the theory also says the speed of light is finite, 186,000 miles per second.
So there would have been a delay for the shuttle to reach Earth, even from the guy on Earth's perspective.
The guy standing on Earth's watch would NOT read 3:15, but 3:15.05 or some other value.

So, upon stepping on Earth and exiting his shuttle, according to Einstein's theory, the guy in the shuttle magically enters an alternate universe, a parallel dimension, where they guy on Earth's watch magically reads 3:15 (instead of 3:15.05 as it should in the original reality.)

According to this, it would seem that all one needs to do to travel backwards in time, is simply nudge a little faster than the speed of light, and you get to go as far backward in time as you please.

After careful thought, Einstein's theory begins to feel at home comfortable in the land of LSD and rabbit holes.

And thus, if approaching the event horizon of a black hole, light could slingshot using the gravitation vortex to exceed 186,000 miles per second, causing backwards time travel around it. This would serve no purpose, because the black hole would still exist, for a while. The light would swirl around, continuing to accelerate and eventually reach the point in time before the black hole existed, the light would likely move in a random direction at this point, or no direction, going inside itself into another dimension, possibly because it went so far back in time it cascaded itself from the shrinking of the universe. allowing it to time travel back in time, providing black holes exist and that it entered the surface of the black hole at just the right tangent in order to maximize it's swirling ability.

The big question is, what is the light we see? Is it a fake because the real light is in another dimension? If someone traveled lightspeed, it would imply that they became two separate consciousnesses, drifting further and further apart the longer they travel.
[/b]

A moving clock slows down relative to a stationary clock, so compared to a clock traveling at close to the speed of light, a stationary clocks appear to be running fast. Stationary observers would say that our moving clocks are running too slow...relatively speaking that is.

The speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless if you are moving at close to the speed of light or you are stationary. The speed of light is constant in order that the laws of physics are not broken.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Well, Einsteins relativity is treated like science, and not "hypothesis". And according to his theory, time travel is possible. (Which I may explain later.) Doesn't mean Einstein's relativity is true, but if it was.

Yeah great possible does not mean proved. And Einstein never said time travel was possible anyway, not in such terms. he couldn't rule it out, but you should not then rule it in just 'cause he didn't know.

I can't rule out that we are all space Weevils infecting the minds of the great sand lump hammer trojan custard lord. But I don't think it is wise to rule things in on the basis of what I don't know or can hence not rule out.

Nothing in science is true if it was it would not be science.

Nothing in reality is absolutely true either. But then some idiots would beg to differ,

I don't see how Einstein didn't believe in time travel.

Examine this closely.

Imagine a scenario with a man on earth, with his watch set at 3:15.

Very far away, a man is in a space shuttle that can go lightspeed instantaneously.

Both of their watches are 3:15.

Then, the man in the shuttle goes light speed.

According to Einstein and modern science, the craft travels at 186,000 miles per second.
For ease of understanding, we'll just say from his point of view, when he get's to Earth it took about 1 second for him, in the shuttle.
So his watch says 3:16, when he arrives at Earth.

According to theory, time outside the ship would have stood still, from the perspective of the ship.
So, he should expect his watch to read 3:16. and the guy on Earth's watch to read 3:15

Right? WRONG.

It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object to the speed of light so in theory this is not possible. However, one does not have to travel at light speed or close to the speed of light to observe time dilation. You can observe this in a passenger jet flying between two countries if you set up an experiment with atomic clocks. Basically, this means that if I spent 30 years of my life as an airline pilot and I had a twin brother exactly my age, then at the end of my career I would be younger than my twin. Probably in the order of 1/1000 of a second younger. If aircraft flew at 80% the speed of light then the difference would be significant over a 30 year period. My twin would be an old man and I would still be quite young.

Time inside a close to light speed aircraft doesn't appear to pass slowly. It appears to pass normally for the occupants. Time on earth doesn't stand still, nor does it appear to stand still for people on earth.


P.S.

And no I haven't done the calculations. I'm just giving you a rough idea. It is possible to actually do the calculations.

Not close to lightspeed, but 100 percent lightspeed aircraft, time would stand still, no?

[Ginkgo]

Not close to lightspeed, but 100 percent lightspeed aircraft, time would stand still, no?

In theory I guess it means that time would stand still. I would also mean that time passes normally from your point of view. There is also the problem of length contraction to consider. Your spacecraft and yourself start to contract the faster you go. Again, you do not notice this because everything appears to be normal from your point of view. So in theory, I guess traveling at light speed would result in everything being contracted to zero.

From my point of view the idea of traveling at the speed of light results in many paradoxes. The only thing I can suggest is that nature provides us with a cosmic speed limit so the laws of physics cannot be broken. Other than all of this, I don't really know.

Others may have a different take on the theoretical aspects of traveling at the speed of light.

[uwot]

From my point of view the idea of traveling at the speed of light results in many paradoxes. The only thing I can suggest is that nature provides us with a cosmic speed limit so the laws of physics cannot be broken. Other than all of this, I don't really know.

Teleological, Ginkgo; naughty!

Others may have a different take on the theoretical aspects of traveling at the speed of light.

You know it. http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... ou-go.html or this: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... plane.html

[Blaggard]

Nothing in reality is absolutely true either.

Is this an absolute truth?

But then some idiots would beg to differ.

And some idiots don't understand Logic but can still do Maths.

Well you appear to be clued up on idiots an expert if you will, logic is not maths, but I can equate a dogma ridden old hack to one who has all the answers but none of the solutions.

Nothing is an absolute truth not even that there are no absolute truths, you really need to get that massive tree trunk out of your ass, because you seem to be under the illusion that you matter at all to anything and you don't, not even philosophy, go blow on your dusty old relics UK.

You're old school you hand people arguments they didn't say like a scarecrow stuffed with straw, and then when they say, I didn't say that you just vacillate so as to not appear like you are back tracking furiously. If you ever did learn phillososphy I for one want to meet your tutor and slap the ****. He fucked up bad. You don't say anything you just work around things like a numpty with a chufty badge, you have no more chance of being creative from your vast library of other peoples ideas than I have of becoming Pope. Suffice to say you are tired old dinosaur who just doesn't want to accept the 21st century.

[Ginkgo]

From my point of view the idea of traveling at the speed of light results in many paradoxes. The only thing I can suggest is that nature provides us with a cosmic speed limit so the laws of physics cannot be broken. Other than all of this, I don't really know.

Teleological, Ginkgo; naughty!

Damn, I was hoping you wouldn't notice.

Others may have a different take on the theoretical aspects of traveling at the speed of light.

You know it. http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... ou-go.html or this: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... plane.html

Good on you uwot, I knew you would come to the rescue.

[Arising_uk]

Well you appear to be clued up on idiots an expert if you will, logic is not maths, but I can equate a dogma ridden old hack to one who has all the answers but none of the solutions.

Solution to what you loon?

Nothing is an absolute truth not even that there are no absolute truths,

Quite literally meaningless nonsense.

you really need to get that massive tree trunk out of your ass, because you seem to be under the illusion that you matter at all to anything and you don't, not even philosophy, go blow on your dusty old relics UK.

I have no idea why you are so insecure but please stop projecting it upon me.

You're old school you hand people arguments they didn't say like a scarecrow stuffed with straw, and then when they say, I didn't say that you just vacillate so as to not appear like you are back tracking furiously.

Show me where numbnuts!?

If you ever did learn phillososphy I for one want to meet your tutor and slap the ****. He fucked up bad.

As if you'd know.

You don't say anything you just work around things like a numpty with a chufty badge, you have no more chance of being creative from your vast library of other peoples ideas than I have of becoming Pope. Suffice to say you are tired old dinosaur who just doesn't want to accept the 21st century.

What's that then? One where people abandon logic and science and return to religion, Oh! Look! You're getting your wish. If you define 'reality' as only the contingent propositions, i.e. the empirical, then there is no absolute truth, if you define reality as all the propositions then there is. Given that Logic shows the borders and content of reality, i.e. existence, i.e. the necessary, the impossible and the contingent conditions for existence I'll keep on thinking that it holds regardless of what any century thinks.

Oh! And given your 'with a bullet ignore' LMFAO that you have replied to me once more!! What a weak and feeble character you have.

[Greylorn Ell]

That it exists.

AUK,

You nailed it.

This thread should have ended at your reply, so I did not bother reading the rest of it.

Greylorn

[Dalek Prime]

So many questions that are yet to be answered. How extensive is it in space and time. What is the nature of the Big Bang and for that matter, what is the first cause of our universe (if that exists)? Why is gravity relatively a weak force? What is the true nature of light? Is our universe, electrically speaking, neutral, positive or negative? What actually happens at absolute zero?

What do you think?

PhilX

Nothing is supposed to happen at absolute zero.

To know what the overall charge is in the universe is simple addition, and I don't have time to do the math.

Light is energy.

Good thing gravity is a weak force. It would play havoc with all other forces on the planet.

Bugger if I know the rest.