QUOTE (russelldust @ Apr 15 2004, 19:47)

He made time trave possible (at least in theory).

not quite - he also discovered that the faster you travel, the heavier you become (or was that Newton?)

 

Either way, its the reason particle accelerators can only make electrons reach 99% speed of light because they become so 'massive' for their size, they crush themselves...

 

I still dont understand it all, but its fascinating to think about lol

QUOTE (alasdairm @ Apr 16 2004, 10:32)

QUOTE (Chris Hutchinson @ Apr 15 2004, 11:36) ...and if nothing existed before it, how can space even exist on a planar level?? you have to go back to hawking for the explanation.   assume time "started" with the big bang. asking what happened "before" the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole. there's no (simple) answer because the question doesn't make any sense.   alasdair yeah - your spot on with what you say, but thats why I dont understand it because the concept of 'nothing' is not something anyone can truely imagine because I guess it can never really exist can it...??

QUOTE (James @ Apr 16 2004, 03:34)

Everyone keeps going on about the size of the universe in terms of how large - what about how small - is it possible that an atom contains other sub-universes

powers of ten

 

(pot optional)

 

 

alasdair

QUOTE (Chris Hutchinson @ Apr 16 2004, 07:28)

yeah - your spot on with what you say, but thats why I dont understand it because the concept of 'nothing' is not something anyone can truely imagine because I guess it can never really exist can it...??

well, who knows. my opinion is that we're simply not wired to understand it (yet).

 

have you read flatland. it's a simple tale but it helped me understand why i don't understand

 

it's about a shape who lives in a two-dimensional world. one day, he gets a glimpse of three dimensions and it's worded in such a way that it shed slight on on our understanding three/four dimensions but having trouble comprehending a fifth or other dimensions.

 

on the concept of nothing, i think we're hindered by our own experience. the only way we can really understand nothing is as an absence of anything. in this case (indeed the name itself) we're still viewing nothing in terms of 'things' (or their absence).

 

alasdair

Edited April 17, 200420 yr by alasdairm

QUOTE (alasdairm @ Apr 17 2004, 04:58)

QUOTE (James @ Apr 16 2004, 03:34) Everyone keeps going on about the size of the universe in terms of how large - what about how small - is it possible that an atom contains other sub-universes powers of ten   (pot optional)     alasdair WOW - thanks for the link Alasdair !!!