im almost at the end of this 3 hour video....on the third hour. Yet so far....it comes off as crazyness, so far all he has done is add small demensions. What i don't get about this is how they assume that the smallest peices are strings? It works either way in my mind....and is not really describing anything new other than dimensions.....in my mind you could view what they call a string as a small particle ball....which still has the ability to vibrate different tunes, stretch and all that, so why choose a string. Imagine a water balloon. thump it and it ripples/vibrates, pull on the top and bottom and it stretches out. a liquid particle would act both as a wave and a point particle, or better yet a point particles which vibrates waves. I think i just said the same thing in 3 different ways...but you get what i mean.


I will continue learning what they think, and others as well, not everyone is a string theorist, but it still conflicts with my brain. I say that you can have equations of relativity and QM without space being distorted. I view space as an (EMPTY) vaccum which particles are in, like filling a jag with sand, although there are sand particles flooding the jar, there is still a space/vaccum that is separate from the particles, which the particles are in.

Gravity or anything else dosen't have to be thought of as warping actual space, but feilds effect the particles in that space. To me gravity could still be simply wave/particls or Liquid vibrating particles that fly in and out of mass.....but of course, even that dosen't sound right. If there is a graitron flying out of earth, then comming back in, then it would suggest that where the particles flow out...gravity would have a reverse effect and send you flying out in space, bringing you back and smashing you into the ground. Hell, maybe space(Not time) is warped, its the only good explanation that explains how everything falls in. But what about magnets....the operate on the same level kinda....all force pulls in, none out. So to me there would not be particles jumping out because magnets don't push metal away, they just pull.

If someone can answer this please do so, say you had a ball magnet in space, and a small metal ball, would it be possible to get the metal ball far enough from the magnet that it dosen't get sucked straight in...yet has enough pull to keep it from flying of and orbits around the magnet?

I'll have to do more thinking. Maybe read up on flux waves and all.

I have learned and enjoyed so much from this series and it should be watched by all!
each link is the first video of Atom 1,2, and 3 each contain 6 parts(easy to find the rest from the links) so theres lots of yummy content in there!
Enjoy

BBC Horizon Atom 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B88W8aqqQkg
BBC Horizon Atom 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFnLoTKfdj4
BBC Horizon Atom 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...ext_from=PL&index=68
(this video maybe what your looking for, Titled 'The illusion of reality'

It is always a good idea to look things up yourself. Wiki is a convient place to start and has a lot about QM/relativity however it is sometimes incorrect. Some good books on the subject are "The dancing Wu li Masters", "The Tao of Zen". These give a good general overview and are not too difficult to understand. If you are interested in some more in-depth books let me know.

The difference b/w an electric and magnetic field depends on the location/velocity of the observer in space (location in space-time) (relativity). For a relatively stationary observer an electric field is generated by a charged particle. If there is no motion (which is difficult) there is no measurable magnetic field for that observer. However motion of an electric field causes a perpendicular (to the plane of the EF) magnetic field as well as the electric field. Thus these fields are usually a single related entity called the electromagnetic field. Which part is measured as electric and magnetic are relative to the observer.

Thanx for the links, i will enjoy!


Everyone else....thanx for your help. I'll be back with more questions after i learn more. Hopefully these links will also fill me in on alot, but i'm sure some reading will be required also. Bufo...i'll check thoughs tittles out. Though i do learn best with videos....i like to see the visual representation of whats being talked about, it comes together in my mind to also see whats being explained.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYmdgHyCF_Q
http://www.youtube.com/w...d-AM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLo-qb1Jg64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga5gVrJgR0A

BBC Horizon is good for this type of thing. Brian Cox, Brian Greene and Michio Kaku are really good at explaining complex ideas to the layman as well, I would suggest searching for them if you prefer learning with videos.

Wow, i actually understand the answer for time i was given,relativity. Time is relative.

So i was right in my thinking, actual time is not being discussed, only relative time of the observer or the one traveling. I think they should choose there statements more wizely, they actually don't know what real time is, to tell an uneducated person time can actally be slowed and speed up gives them a false sence of reality, giving the illusion that actual time can be manipulated when its not known that it can be.

"Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Albert Einstein)


Time is a dimension. We use it to relate events (in time). It does not exist on its own.
Length, width, height, time. They are always describing the world around us. They are dimensions of what we call matter.
Time is always relative to matter, the electrons in the control board you mention. Time cannot be seen 'loose' from the electrons.

Does this make sense?
Im puzzling myself

I really wish it did, but no. It makes sence in the way they describe, i get what there saying, but don't agree. I don't even agree that time is a demension, though it does flow in a direction...forward, i see time as separate, as i see space as seperate from the matter in it, i don't think matter is space, i think matter is in space.

I don't get the string theory either, suggesting there are other small dimensions. Why i can explain, Say you have a balloon in a balloon as these demensions are described, do you have an extra direction you can travel....no. There is still just x, y, z. Weather you stay in the big balloon or travel into the small bollon within the big balloon, you still have the same three dimensions in which you can travel.

But i don't say im right....i don't know....but neither do they, my opinion just seems more logical to me. Its a tuff cookie to crack, maybe impossible for us. Even how i view it, i see flaws because of the big problem....where does it start? If its a loop and has no start...just loops, what built the loop of time? same problem with space, does it end, does it start, how did it get here? How can it go on forever, but at the same time, how could you reach the end.

They are very good at learning the laws, how bodies act in space and how particles do all the shit they do, but when it gets to space and time, i really don't think its possible to acheive a true answer...only speculation. I did not start at the big bang, maybe our universe did, but space, time and matter, i wouldn't think, just magically popped in and began, that alone goes against QM and conservation of energy. QM says that matter can do this, but the energy has to already exist to borrow it, or you break the conservation of energy, how can something just have always been, what happen 9x[10(pwr1000000000000000)] years before the big bang? How far can you go back, how far can you go forward?

I don't think we have the capability to understand space and time, only objects within them.

'1 meter' is an abstraction. A meter doesnt really exist.
It only describes a distance between to states, two objects if you like.
Same with time.

Time and space are abstract.
They form the framework of your consciousness.
They form the abstract 'place' (dimensions) wherein you see the universe (in 3d).

See, thats a problem for me, i'm not trying to debate it or disagree with you or scientists, i just don't see anyone thinking they grasp what time and space is, i can actually go as far as saying its foolish to suggest that you do grasp what it is, even Einstien, any person.

You can say a meter dosen't exist, but it does exist as a measurement of space that we deffined as a metter, how much space...1 meter of space.

Time and space are different to me, its not just a measurment, we cannot live in a created measurment without someone to create the measurement, space and time is the objet we measure....and it is an object, it does exist. If it did not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation, existence would not be.

Our model of the flow of time appears to have a strong cultural element to it. Many cultures experience time as moving from left to right. Anthropologists have found at least one culture that describes time as moving from forward to back.

When in line at the bank, with time feeling like it has slowed to a crawl, do you deny your experience just because of what a clock says?

that's why I say time is relative
it really is, literally

maintain a timeless mind, and it becomes very clear

even this way you are using 'space' as something physical. Relative to (space) matter that is.

I heard about this a while ago but couldn't find which tribe it was. Do you know or can you refernce it? I'd love to read more.

Cheeto, you're right, a lot of it is counter intuitive. String theory is just that - theory. It has a lot of opposition due to it currently having no supporting evidence. Many think it may be impossible to find any evidence. It is all in the very complex maths.

Once in a while though someone comes along - like Einstein, who can conceptualise these things and see the world in a way no one ever thought of before.

well, its clear where i stand on space and time, so no need for me to say that again. And theory is a good thing, its us trying to understand, you theorise and set out to find evidence that the theory is correct, but even though the math behind the theory can play out to be true, little explanations of the reality of what is going on to cause this can still be wrong. Example being you could not prove that time is not an on-going event rather than others explanation of space/time.



"even this way you are using 'space' as something physical. Relative to (space) matter that is."

Is there possibly another way you could explain what you mean without using the word relative. I'm having a hard time grasping the meaning of that word. Sorry if i sound dumb, but i would like to understand what your saying...i have bad vocabulary, i looked up the deff, yet still not quite sure what it means. I though i did...but not so sure.

"Many cultures experience time as moving from left to right."

In my view, its really pointless to even set a direction for it, i say forward as meaning time only goes on, you cannot reverse it. you cannot zoom ahead of the train, or stop and let the train keep going, your stuck as a passenger, all you can do is ride the train. Who can say how long the train has been moving, and how long it will continue to move.

---

Something else hit me today, im interested to know the answer. Our galaxy is moving away from point A near the speed of light, yet within our galaxy there are starts casting out light, near or the speed of light, so compaired to point A, is the light thats headed away from point A within our galaxy moving near double the speed of light compaired to point A? Or does it slow down compaired to us within the galaxy?

relative means just that
time is relative to what you're basing it on, typically an observed event.
in space, time is obviously going to be relative to something other than earth days/hours/minutes, etc.
star date is very different than earth date.

in the grand scheme, time is infinite...possibly always was.
who knows

You can't see 1 meter of nothing. If you see 1 meter, then you see 1 meter of some thing. You call this thing 'space' when you say '1 meter of space'. In this way space is seen as a structure, as an abstraction of some thing physical, as a thing. And some thing physical means matter, otherwise it would be nothing. You cannot imagine matter without l, w, h. You cannot imagine the l, w, h without matter (or abstraction thereof, structure).

Ok, i understand what your saying now....but to clear what i'm saying.....this is an asummption to me...that space is matter....is time considered matter? Probably in there view of space/time. I understand relative now....basically compaired to.

See, i thought forms of matter was forms of energy(Energy and particles). When you look at the atom, its mainly space, would you consider it solid...or liquid matter....space is liquid matter? See, i still think there is a possibility that, that view is incorrect. I'm not a great scientist or even a scientist, but i'm good at thinking, and we still could not prove that it isn't just that, empty space with matter in it, matter and space seperate, but space not an object, as in object of matter but a empty vaccum of space. Thats just how i view it, i see i'm alone in that view....yet its still how i see it.


In the view they give, space its self is constructed of matter, in my view...space and time hold matter...in my view, you could possibly travel in space and run out of matter, only vaccum. What of background radiation from the big bang, does that perhaps keep the univers at what we consider absolute zero, outside of our universe....could absolute zero actually be less than we know of. Is it possible to escape the warming effects of radiation within our universe? Though thats just an idea...maybe i should read some on background radiation before further theory of that...

I don't know...its confusing at this point....but i still think its possible that space can exist as a vaccum with matter in it rather than matter being space....what space would the matter be in if it where made of matter...without the space it would be shrunk to a sigularity. Also...if you consider space matter...then shouldn't there also be 4 states of space...as all matter has 4 known states.


On another note, maybe there are right....and space is a feild of energy(matter), but...my assumption of a field requires something to radiate the field. Maybe my next stop should be reading Quantum Field Theory, to better understand fields.

wo wo!!
What i am still trying to say is when you think of space, then you think of matter. This can be objects, points or particles. Some you can touch, like particles, and some are abstract, like points in a mental image. We see matter in space, we see space between matter. In this way space is a distance of course. Space as distance in between.

But... they do form the framework wherein we see the physical world. In this way they cannot be seen 'loose' from matter (structure). If you see a distance, then this distance is between (touchable) particles or (abstract) points. The distance itself does not exist, it only arises when you compare two points of reference.

Of course you can imangine time without affecting atomclocks.
But when you compare the clock on earth to the clock in orbit, then you will find differences. How can these differences be explained? by relativity.
Is the clock on earth true? Or the clock in orbit? The time in the valley or the time on the mountain? Which one says the true time?
They are not true or false. They are relative. The numbers on the clocks (the time) are ratios. Comparisons. Time and space (distance) are comparisons.

Dude i feel like i am confusing you (and me).
Nice of you to strech my mind

To me it seems like you think of time only in an linear (or perhaps curved or circular) abtract way.
You just imagine time as without relation to matter, just a vector in an abstract 4th dimension (where it has direction.)
That is cool though.

I dont have answers

Yes...that is how i see time. It can be confusing because we use time also as a measurement in events, and space as a measurement of distance between objects. When you talk about these...space and time, your generally speaking in a relative manner, what part of time, what part of space. If you had just trully empty space, you would not notice how big it is, or notice how time rolls on, because it would be just an empty space with nothing happening. But say you get the ability to be there. Now space and time is relative to your measurements, you are the first peice of matter, your lost anywhere you go because there is nothing to base your location on, no other matter to relate to, but you wouldn't consider your self the edge of space, because you can still move forward, though still having nothing to relate it to, you wouldn't notice your moving because you have nothing to relate it to..but just because you can't relate it to anything dosen't mean its not there, thats how you travel in it.

What the actual time is of course no one can answer, but no one can answer the million dollar question, when did time start? If you knew that answer, you would know the true time, our measurment in years. I completely understand what your saying about relativity, time is only relative to events going on, perhaps thats even the best way to see it, because of conservation of energy, they all three(Space, Time, Matter) had to show up at the same time, without matter we wouldn't be here, without time matter wouldn't evolve, without space matter would be a singularity.

Thats another puzzle to me though, in QM matter can pop in by grabing energy from the future...they say, but in the real begining, if one, if there was only nothing, no space, no time, no matter...then what future is it getting energy from? It is nothing, so should have a future of nothing. Ya know, i sure hope there is a God, maybe he can clear this up when i die, i'm starting to think maybe conservation of energy is wrong, with an ever expanding space time and matter, there has to be some way of creating energy for it to expand, or we just don't have the ability to view something as having no start or end. Which is understandable, because of conservation of energy, we shouldn't exist. Its been fun, but i think thats about as far as that can be explored.

I hope time travel is possible...if time is a loop, perhaps there are ways to jump to different parts. But for now or ever, i'll just have to learn what we know and think to be true.