Time Machine

Does anybody? As I've said before, I never weighed in on this issue. Most of the rest of your message is just a list of unsupported assertions.I originally commented solely on your assertions regarding the four fundamental forces being expressions of EMR, and I have and will continue to confine myself solely to that. In this message you say it again: If this is actually a prevailing view within contemporary physics, why not just provide a reference? Your continued avoidance of this simple request is really all the answer necessary.--Percy Fix typo. --Percy[This message has been edited by Percy, 03-29-2004]

'' Does anybody? ''Hopefully some, but obviously not you.'' Most of the rest of your message is just a list of unsupported assertions. ''Assertions tend not to have question marks following them, they are simple questions, the next question is do you agree with these ''assertions'' or not?I have had a quick look and have found the simplest expalnation on the net [maybe] have a look...Forbidden Fix link. --Admin[This message has been edited by V-Bird, 03-29-2004][This message has been edited by Admin, 03-29-2004]

Or from the 'other side'...Telenor | Sidan hittades inte | 404[This message has been edited by V-Bird, 03-29-2004]

First...Does anone on this forum believe that 'time' and 'space' are real, mutable objects?Second...Where do the 'gluons', 'bosons' and ''gravitons'' derive their energy and where do they reside?

The forces arise from particle interactions; each force has different mediating particles. This is not about me; this is just basic particle physics, which you can read about in a good library.A good on-line reference for the fundamental forces is Fundamental Forces, which is part of the hyper-physics on-line reference at Georgia State University. I use it frequently as a reference.EMR means electromagnetic radiation... light, in other words; which is made up of photons. Photons are the mediating particle of one of the four fundamental forces; the electromagnetic force. It is the force associated with charged particles, and is a very long range force.The next fundamental force is the weak nuclear force. This is a very short range force, mediated by W and Z bosons. It is involved in some radioactive decay processes, like beta decay.The electroweak theory was developed in the sixties, and unified the electromagnetic force (which is associated with EMR) and the weak force into a single unified description. The 1979 Nobel prize went to Glashow, Salam and Weinberg for this achievement.In this unified model, photons, and W and Z bosons are treated in a single unified framework. The model proposes that at very very high temperatures, these particles all behaved in much the same way.Unification has nothing at all to do with phase differences or any of the other nonsense we've seen in the thread.The strong force is the force which holds an atomic nucleus together. It has a small range, about the size of an atomic nucleus. This is still much longer range than the weak force. The mediating particles of this force are pions and gluons.The Grand Unification is the as yet unrealised hope for a single unified description of the strong force with the electroweak force. Contrary to the implications in this thread, this is a major problem receiving the concentrated attention of physics community. It is likely to be solved in time; and the solution will be almost a certainty for a Nobel prize.V-Bird's fluff is, to put it mildly, an outside chance for being recognized as the basis for a solution to the problems of unification... Gravity is the last force; the weakest, but dominant over large scales of the universe. The mediating particle, predicted but so far not observed, is the graviton. The holy grail of particle physics is Unification of gravity with the other forces. We are a long way from solving this one.The creation of matter occurs as very high energy force-mediating particles form particle anti-particle pairs of matter particles. This requires energies available in the very early universe; and has also been observed and studied using very high energy linear accelerators.Cheers -- Sylas[This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-29-2004]

1. I do not believe time is a "mutable object"
2. Bosons are a catch all term form fundlemental carrier particles
a. gluons are responsible for the color force.I have no earthly idea where these particles reside

'' The forces arise from particle interactions; ''Agreed, but where did the particles come from, what energy formed them.The building block for all particles is energy... pure energy... EMR.The rest is fine and agrees with all I have posted on those particular matters.Unification is something I keep right away from unless moved to comment, I believe it is some way off as there is much to 'overturn' before it could be accepted, the answer I feel is likely to be the cause of much angst and I don't believe that the proposers will get any recognition in their lifetime, it has to be radical as we are at a dead-end at the moment and some of the very basic tenets are likely quite wrong.Just my opinion...

Well, obviously not me. I never claimed any particular gift for comprehending nonsense.Your link, Chapter 6, Virtual Photons, is from An Advanced Treatise In SUBSPACE and QUANTUM ASPECTS of BIOLOGY by Professor William C. Nelson of the College of Practical Homeopathy, London England, and it appears at the website of Quantum Alliance where "Ancient Healing Meets Modern Technology". This is a quack website, plus it offers you no support since it says: The question was whether you were describing prevailing views within modern physics. You replied by referencing Einstein and Feynman. Now, when pressed, you provide a link that not only is of questionable merit, but even it only characterizes such views as yours as speculations. If you'd like to discuss some of the more esoteric ideas being explored in modern physics, then you should just say so, because misrepresenting them as accepted is contrary to the Forum Guidelines (see #7) and can get one restricted to Free For All. But I guess you knew that already. Your other link is to The Origin of Galaxies by Erik Haeffner. He proposes the CER (Condensed Electromagnetic Radiation) Wave Packet Concept to explain mass and charge. There are few links for CER found by Google, and they all derive directly or indirectly from the aforementioned Haeffner. He's written a couple of unpublished papers, one mentioned above, the other A Physical Origin of Mass and Charge that appeared at Galilean Electrodynamics, a website promoting work critical of relativity theory - interesting that you mentioned Einstein as supporting your views earlier today.There doesn't appear to be much at this point separating your views from those of the quacks you cited. You might consider joining Alan Cresswell over at the Perpetual Motion thread --Percy

Yeah, I thought you might like the first link... hahahaha The second is not so easily dismissed, and contains a kernel of truth.[Hence my 'from the other side' remark.]Comprehending nonsense is not a gift, it's a curse.The gift is to blow away the chaff, not the wheat.Einstein did not get everything right and is not beyond scrutiny, scientific endeavour is never really finished, even an apparent '.' rarely is anything as such.

I never said otherwise. I only commented on the irony of offering both Einstein and Haeffner in support.Do you want to discuss your ideas? Now that we've gotten past the pose that they're part of mainstream physics, this might be possible. I suggest taking it one very small step at a time. Speaking of time, we could start with that.I don't think anyone here believes time has any physical manifestation, but reaching agreement on the nature of time might be problematic because of it's somewhat ethereal and relativistic properties. Is there some property of time especially important to explaining your views? Perhaps we could focus on that.--Percy

With the final acceptance that time is a construct I think we have called 'time!' on Time and Time Machines.

Could you also give your reasoning why time travel would be impossible just because time isn't made out of energy?

No energy = no existence = no time travel.One cannot travel in what does not exist.

--Percy

Indeed!