Interesting. Sure makes me feel like a 5 year old school kid again

So if gravity isn't a real force, then what would you call it? I mean, when I jump in the air I fall back. So there's something pulling me towards the center of this piece of rock.

Back in high school during chemistry classes I thought I was taught that electrons are kept in a circulair orbit (lacking a better description) due to the atom's pull on the electrons? Would that be the same thing we call "gravity" (but which doesn't exist you just said)?

Btw if gravity is an illusion, the reason that I'm falling back to the ground when I jump in the air is just because I think it should happen? Perhaps the Matrix does exist after all...

and no i'm not serious about the last paragraph

The reason why you fall back to the ground is that the mass of the Earth is curving/bending the space around it, which causes you to fall back down towards it. To picture this simply, imagine if you held a paper towel by the four corners. Now put a rock in the middle of the paper towel. See how it curves in towards the middle? It's not "gravity", it's just space being curved by the presence of matter/energy.

That is definately not "gravitational" force causing the electron to properly orbit the nucleus of the atom. The negative charge of the electrons are actually attracted to the positive charge of the protons. If I remember correctly, there is actually another repulsive force that is just strong enough to keep the electrons from collapsing into the protons, but not too strong to make them fly off.

So given all this, can anyone take a stab at why stars don't fly out of the galaxies they reside in considering the mass and the speed in which each galaxy rotates at, without using the term dark matter..
(the milk in saucer test : when you spin the saucer what happens to the milk)

What I'm going to say sounds perfectly reasonable in my head, don't take it at face value though...just a geek here, not a space-boy.

When you spin the saucer the milk won't necessarily fly out, it depends on how fast you spin it. Perhaps the same can be said about the galaxies rotate. Perhaps they simply aren't rotating fast enough for the stars to go flying out of them?

Nice discussion - I thought I'd contribute - hope you don't mind.

Time travel is physically impossible because as an object approaches the speed of light it's density increases until it reaches infinite density. It cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

See this:
http://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/space-time.html

Ah, so you've heard of the graviton arguments I won't give a professional opinion here, because it wouldn't be professional, but gravity is indeed a force. Just because it is a ranged force (inverse-square) does not mean it's an illusion. Yes, gravity wells are caused by the effects of matter-energy (and electrical charges, for that matter) on space-time. However, say you place a ball on a slanted ramp (frictionless). We say, for sake of simplicity, that gravity pulls the ball down. This is not entirely true, of course. However, imagine that there is no "gravity" pulling the ball down. If you place the ball on the ramp, and let go, it will roll down the ramp. Why? It's the path of least resistance. The same applies to curvature of space-time. Just because there is no string yanking the ball down does not mean gravity is a force. It has to do with specificity. When you throw a ball, we say you burn fuel in your body to create energy which allows you to apply a force to the ball and projectile motion ensues. Why don't we say that every particle in your hand applies a force upon every particle of the ball via EMR? Because it's too complicated. We don't, however, say that "projectile motion is an illusion" now, do we?

Stars don't fly out of galaxies for several reasons. First of all, there is a centripetal force (a force directed toward the center of the orbit) acting on the stars. Additionally, there are black holes at the center of all (don't quote me on that) galaxies.

For all intensive purposes, electrons don't exist Don't look at me like I'm crazy, but think of it this way. If you were to measure something, how would you do it? You'd shoot it with photons, see what they hit and what they don't hit. This means you are more or less limited by the wavelength of light (not really, due to other complicated things like wave-particle duality and quantum foam, but this is close enough for government work). This is the basis of the uncertainty principle, which more or less states that the more accurately you measure a particle's position, the less accurately you measure it's velocity, and vice versa. This means in short that we don't know where the hell a tiny, fast particle is. Electrons are very tiny and very fast.


Another question to those who believe time is just a human fabrication: how do you explain hyperspace and instantaneous travel? Here's a hint -- it has to do with the curvature of space-time. People didn't invent wormholes, did they?

According to bohr, the different energy levels of the electrons (first "ring", second "ring", etc.) are the standing waves of the electrons. Electrons move in wave motion around the nucleus but can only exist at certain distances from the nucleus. This is due to the fact that the designated rings are the exact circumference in order to maintain a standing wave on its circular journey. It was said by Bohr (is that correct?) that electrons can only exist in these rings, not in between, but it is been found that electrons can move to other rings, referring to a "quantum leap."

Seee..Linux definatly teaches you something new everyday

So why is that when you wear a pair of sunglasses that some particles will be reflected and some will not..What is it that dictates which particle will be reflected and which one would not be..much like the idea of interconnection between energy..

sunglasses are based upon the polarization of light. Limiting which light waves enter through the slits, either vertical or horizontal. It is like a strainer sort of.

the object must be infinitely thin in order to reach the speed of light also.

What Sausage said is correct, for hydrogen

Bohr's formulae are only correct for hydrogen. Quantum atomic theory applies for all atoms.

okay, let's backtrack a little. when u speak as such(in the quote), you base your concepts of hyperspace/instantaneous travel etc etc on what? my impression is you base it on the pre-assumption that time already exists, that time passes. what i was trying to say is this: time 'passes' because we visually see the clock hand move or the shadows cast by the movement of the earth around the sun. but we can't actually point to something and say "oh look, that's time". imagine trying to explain a 2 year old child what time is. what would you say or tell? that's why i say that time is an abstraction, a human / social concept. and that's how i can entertain the possibility that time(as we know it today) MAY not exist (please note that the key word here is 'entertain' not 'believe'). unless your definition of time is different from mine.

therefore in answer to your question above, if given that time does not exist, 'instantaneous'-ness cannot exist. this instantaneous travel is not possible. if you reverse your causal relationship, you might just get what i'm trying to say. it doesn't mean that instantaneous travel proves that time exist, but rather does time exist in the first place for instantaneous travel to take place? if a succeeding block of theory is based on a false premise /preassumption, how can it be proven?

indeed.

I'm basing my assumptions on widely accepted theoretical data. Pardon me for respecting the opinion of Stephen Hawking over yours.

sorry to butt in, i kind of started this whole charade.. ( did i spell that right ) anyways, lets see here, first off everyone is respected of their own opinion and whatever they learnt in school, college, field of study.. etc etc...
there are alot of assumptions and theories in this world that aren't clearly explained and some that will never be explained. trying to prove that time travel is possible is almost like proving that there is a god.. or gods, whatever your belief is and there are many different beliefs, faiths and religions. who is to know who is right at times. like our religions in the world, the only proof we have of some higher being is by our own evidence here on earth we can go by and use that us humans created.

all i am saying is, lets get back to linux... were way off topic now and this could go back and forth forever til it actually happens or not... and lets please not start a new long drawn out discussion on anything i have said, especially religion please.

this is a linux forum.. maybe if we want to discuss time travel, i am sure there are forums out there about it or physics....

good day..

-trickykid

and there was a time when everyone believed that the earth was flat. though i'm not saying that it's a sphere as well (not with a straight face anyway...)

well, i am not forcing anyone to accept my opinion. nor do i disrespect stephen hawking (whatever it is he may be hawking at the moment ) nor do i mean to disrespect you. but can anyone claim to be the ivory tower of any kind of knowledge? referring back to my earlier posts, i merely asked for your intellectual indulgence, not a complete buyover to what i was saying. i hardly believe it myself and probably would go with quantum physics, had i studied it.

hope i have not caused you pain or reason to take offense.ah... yes. now here's a spot of personal ignorance i would like to rectify.
Agreed then!