Skip to comments.The Universe Made Simple
Posted on 05/25/2004 8:01:29 PM PDT by RonzoEdited on 06/07/2005 12:27:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Can you access the flash of emancipation you felt the first time you were able to stay up on a bike or propel yourself through the water? Can you remember the way your new knowledge enhanced your life? And can you recall the gratitude you felt toward those people who had the skill and the patience to pass that knowledge along to you?
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Uh-oh. Bell-bottom jeans and paisley pants aren't dead after all?
No. But don't run off to the local Wal-Mart trying to find a pair anytime soon, I think they've been sent to a parallel universe...
Kind of an interesting article...
Cool!!! Now I understand those occasional deja-vu's I experience.
You and your friends might find this article insteresting...
Anybody who can "access the flash of emancipation..." has probably yet to learn how to tie his own shoes -such writing!
You're my science guru on FR, one good ping deserves another.
Thank you so much for the article, Ronzo. I really like Green's presentations.
betty boop, you've probably already recognized the "time is a plane and not a line" phenomenon raised in discussing extra time dimensions.
This theory might yet explain the unresolved "lost sock" mystery!
(Or would that be the loose-string theory?)
The Ultimate Unified Theory of Everything includes: Photons, Croutons, Neurons, Futons, Carrions, Gravitons, Crayons, and Morons.
What I thought at first were flashbacks from my experimental years, I discovered were actually astral projections into one of them parallel universes. But don't ask me how I did it.
You forgot 'Klingons'
Non linear time flow - sounds like a Slaughterhouse-Five type of existence
Okay, enough of the humor. I really wanted to know why everyone uses the word, 'dimension,' as in three dimensions or even eleven dimensions when they are describing infinite space? I thought dimensions were attributes (length x width x height) of solid, finite objects. Wouldn't it be more descriptive to use the word, directions, when describing the attibutes of space? Even Bradly Jay uses the word, dimension, to describe the three attributes of space as though it were finite.
I don't think it was an accident that we have three directional space to set three-dimensional objects into. A perfect fit every time.
Well, that was just a passing thought, but I wanted to ask a better question:
Is an object moving in space having an un-interrupted journey (smooth) or is the object just changing spacial coordinates in a jerky-like motion, but in increments so tiny that it can't be physically observed, vibrating (the moving object disappearing) beyond the quantum and coming back in another location? Like the frames on a movie film which, when rolling, have the appearance of smooth motion only because of the after-images we have in our mind merges in synch with the appearance of the next frame which was actually in a different location before it was projected.
Please bear with me on this. I'm completely void of knowledge and technical terms in this field except for the few books I've read. And 'C' from where I come from is usually followed by the word, note. Thanks.
No, I'm not stringing you along here, for I think the bungee string may account for the snapping back and forth between 'dimensions' -- the end of the pendulum I've been stalking. Heh.
"My own feeling, therefore, is that if we are revealing God's handiwork through our research, I'm happy to be part of that journey. If, on the other hand, all we're doing is revealing laws of physics that have governed the universe from the beginning until today, then I'm happy to be part of that journey, too. So whichever framework it fits into, I think the work itself is noble and interesting and very, very worthwhile."
I like his attitude. Too often brilliant scientists are arrogant pricks.
Personally, I've got four simultaneous "paralell" lives that I am living right now. And I'm having a great time in each one!
Rod Serling, eat your heart out!!!
As far as the motion, if it refers to an living object moving, then the motions would be jerky, just because of the molecular shape of muscles and how they operate. As far as motion of an object through space, where it was merely momentum carrying it a distance, I would venture to guess that the movements would be smooth on a scale of Macro-time (what we percieve) but on a micro-scale that there is some jerkiness. It all depends on if the universe can be divided smaller than strings, onto infinity. If it can, then motion would be smooth, otherwise, both time, and motions would be jerky. Come to think of it, it would be smooth to all perceptions, whether we could observe the motions individually, because if we are living in the time reference that the motion is being observed in, then we would not see time skip, and therefore we would miss the pauses in motion that accompany the pauses in timeflow.
If this makes no snense, then its just because I'm rambling and it has turned into a train-of-thought writing style.
Thanks for the response,Gid. Making headway, I think. Could the micro-scale jerkiness be related to Planck time, which would translate into Planck distances as well?
Yup, made sense. We must be on the same train of thought. Welcome to Free Republic, Gid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.