Is it possible?

1. Mar 28, 2004

The_Nebula

How would it be possible to travel back in time yourself, i know how it would be possible to LOOK back in time, but how to travel back in time yourself? Time traveling backwards also contradicts Einsteins 4 dimensions, which is still part of the 11 dimensions in the string theory, which would mean the superstring theory doesnt support time travel either. Anyone got ideas on how its possible? You travelling back in time physically, i know looking back intime is somewhat possible. And although you can go at the speed of time by going at the speed of light, you cant go beyond speed of light, you cant even travel at the speed of light since you get heavier the faster you go so you would pretty much become a black hole if you ever reach near speed of light speeds. Someone help me out

2. Mar 28, 2004

Staff Emeritus

The possibilities AFAIK are all in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (the gravitation one). Some of the mathematical solutions of Einstein's equations permit "closed timelike curves (CTCs)". Timelike is a term of art meaning at each point of such a curve the time component of the tangent vector is bigger than the space component. This is the characteristic of normal motions - all your motions in your life are timelike. For completeness I will add that if the space and time components of the tangent are equal, the path is lightlike, and only massless objects can travel on such a path. Finally if the space components are bigger than the time component, you have a spacelike path, and these correspond to FTL motions and are thought to be unphysical. FTL motions would support time travel.

Getting back to CTC's, a closed curve is one that meets itself, like a loop. So we have a loop in spacetime, along which ordinary motions are possible. This is time travel. Of course many physicists - most famously Steven Hawking - deny that such a solution is physically possible, whatever the math says. But other physicists - such as Kip Thorne - keep coming up with new valid solutions. They don't do this to support time travel, but to develop GR honestly and without physical prejudices.

3. Mar 28, 2004

sol2

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=170936&postcount=32

This is a link I supplied to Chronus

In the other thread I taked about Ronald Mallet and his experiment, as well as referred to the Van stokum cylinder.

I would prejudice the issue by the beliefs I have, and would suport Self Adjoints statements for clarity on this subject, by Kip Thornes continued work.

But the easiest and most plausible time machine that can be constructed is what's known as a Tipler Cylinder. The materials may be practically "exotic" and the energy requirements enormous, but according to Dr. Frank Tipler of Tulane University in 1974, the construction of a time machine is theoretically feasible. He determined that if you somehow rotate an infinitely long massive cylinder fast enough, it would also "tip" a series of light cones into a CTC. (See B) The speed at the outer surface of the cylinder, though, would have to be greater than half the speed of light. But if something were to rotate this fast, part of it would likely collapse into a singularity - an infinitely small point of space-time, usually caused by a star collapsing under its own gravity, that has infinite mass and where the laws of physics break down. And Tipler stresses, "The stability of massive rotational bodies is questionable. The energy associated with a strong angular momentum would have to be about equal to the rest-mass energy, energy so great that the accompanying centrifugal force may tear the rotating body apart."

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@162.ToSUbTukN42.0@.1ddea281/3 [Broken]

This does take away the ability we have to view past events, and if you read the response to Chronus the passage talks about what could exist apart from our reality and continues on, and using a radio we can bring this into focus.

I talk often abut liminocentric structures and brought a few links together to show how the symbolism of could have been embedded in humanites evolutionary growth and that superstring is symbolically being explained in this context of Wholeness.

Greene's opening statement I use, expands quite a lot on this thinking.

"it turns out that within string theory ... there is actually an identification, we believe, between the very tiny and the very huge. So it turns out that if you, for instance, take a dimension - imagine its in a circle, imagine its really huge - and then you make it smaller and smaller and smaller, the equations tell us that if you make it smaller than a certain length (its about 10-33 centimeters, the so called 'Planck Length') ... its exactly identical, from the point of view of physical properties, as making the circle larger. So you're trying to squeeze it smaller, but actually in reality your efforts are being turned around by the theory and you're actually making the dimension larger. So in some sense, if you try to squeeze it all the way down to zero size, it would be the same as making it infinitely big. ... (CSPAN Archives Videotape #125054)"

http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html

See:http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?50@99.Xonlb0r8NxG.0@.1dde5d90 [Broken]

The http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@162.ToSUbTukN42.0@.1dde3fdf [Broken] at the top of the introductory page if clicked on, will take you to a demonstration of a rollover, that insinuates the connection between the mandala and the cosmic event. Make sure you let it load.

The links to my site are my interpretations and no one elses. They could be wrong.

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
4. Mar 28, 2004

rtharbaugh1

Hi all.

I am somewhat lost and wandering around among these interesting messages, somewhat as a person might have twenty thousand years ago in the caves of Southern France. Perhaps I will eat the clay and spray the mark of my hand before I leave, that is if I can ever find my way back home. Or else I will never leave but just continue to wander, who knows? Not I.

So I must ask Not I what not to do. Not I doesn't seem often to say much. Not saying is more Not I's thing than saying is. You must see that every action "causes" opening futures in time. Which new possibility will you inhabit? You choose. I saw it on a t-shirt: words become actions,habits, charachter, destiny. Or in the old title of ttliang's book, Imagination becomes reality. Well it takes intent aforethought and persistance of action to accomplish any transition. I didn't say it was easy. I just said it was possible.

What is it to move in time? We have the model of every day distanceing, time moves from future to past as a sort of constant. Well maybe a variable. Sometimes, no doubt you have experienced too, time goes fast, sometimes slow. Some moments, I am sure, last forever, and other moments, well, seem to be limited in time some how. They have beginings and endings, they come and go, which is to say that their being somehow transects our being in space time. And we must remember that being is not conserved in the fourth dimension, and what, all non-prime dimensions after? It is I am sure you see a kind of depth. Yet we continue to experience time as a single history, a single set of events of experience or objectiveity, which I might argue is another kind of experience.

I have to go now and there is only a small chance I will find my way back to this especial place.

5. Mar 29, 2004

The_Nebula

You didnt even try to answer my question did you, you just filled your paragraphs with enigmas and paradox. The first 2 were very insightful, thanks, im still trying to understand what they mean

6. Mar 29, 2004

rtharbaugh1

Enigma and Paradox will be your constant companions on your trip, should you choose to try time travel.

Still, you might want to try this. Get on a ship and travel through space at one gravity for a year. You will be traveling at about eightysix percent light speed. Keep going, third star on the left, watch out for never-never land. Another year, another eigtysix percent of the remainder. If anyone at home is watching, they will see you slowing down. It takes you a month to eat a sandwich, but to you it's just lunch. Everybody at home dies, and you are still deciding if you should have pudding for desert. By the time your twin's great grandchildren check on you, you are frozen in the act of reaching for a spoon. As far as they can know, you never get to pick it up, much less taste the chocolate. Maybe you are now traveling at 99.999999999 lightspeed. Huh. Civilizations crumble and you are still trying to get the spoon in your mouth. The sun explodes and the earth and all you know are consumed in flame and ash. You keep going, the universe itself comes to an end, and you havn't even had time to wash up the dishes.

Now let us assume that space and time are infinite. You can keep on going as long as you like, you will never reach light speed. But far behind you, the universe has had time to evolve again. Or again and again. Or thousands of agains, it makes no difference to you. Billions of billions of universes have time to evolve behind you. Infinite billions.

Now all you have to do is wait until one of the infinite universes evolving behind you evolves exactly as this one we have now has evolved. It has to eventually, by the power of positive probability alone. Now, all you need to do is know when to stop so that you come out in the universe exactly like this one, only short of the number of years you wish to travel into the past. You stop the ship at Earth, circa 1950 if you want to kill my mother before I get a chance to be born. Then you won't have to listen to all of this nonsense, and you can go right ahead on without me. I won't notice a thing, so it can hardly be held as a crime against my humanity.

Well, that's the outline. You can take the shadow of my hand, or not. You can rotate infinite cylanders and play tricks with black holes and whatnot, but there it is, the essense of the problem.

Probably you don't really want time travel. You seem to want a different past. That can be accomplished more easily, but it requires a significant number of acts of irrational beauty. Forget yourself and concentrate on serving others. All of us have an ancestry of rape and pillage, it is our common human heritage. Erase that and you erase our humanity along with it. Instead, leave the past where it is and concentrate on imagining a better future, not for yourself or even for your children, but for the children of your enemies. Remember that we are all the children of our ancestors enemies. Forgive me. Forgive them. Forgive yourself.

I hope you find what you are looking for, if not here, then wherever you are.

Thanks for Being,

R.

Last edited: Mar 29, 2004
7. Mar 29, 2004

sol2

Inertial frame-dragging

Hello Richard,

Here is a question that seems pertinent to the work Ronald Mallet is using in his experimentation. I hope I got this right. So I had asked this question, to illustrate the ideas being used here as well question this process. The cylinder arises from these perceptions? See Van Stokum cylinder.

Any enlightenement to forward the perceptions from this regard would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by sol2
Ronald L. Mallett

It is found that the particle exhibits the phenomenon known as inertial frame-dragging.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=169641&postcount=26

Last edited: Mar 29, 2004
8. Mar 29, 2004

Stephen Hawking was once joking about the subject. He believed time travel wasn't possible and said:

It seems that there is a Chronology Protection Agency which prevents the appearance of closed timelike curves and so makes the universe safe for historians. -- Stephen Hawking.

However, in recent years he changed his mind.

No government agency could afford to be seen to be spending public money, on anything as way out as time travel. Instead, one has to use technical terms, like closed time like curves, which are code for time travel. -- Stephen Hawking.

Seriously though... There are a lot of theories why it would or wouldn't be possible. I've collected a lot of these ideas on my site. See Time, Time Travel & Traversable Wormholes for various introductions and in depth articles.

Last edited: Mar 29, 2004
9. Mar 30, 2004

rtharbaugh1

Hi Sol

Good to talk with you again.

I am not up to the maths in Mallett, and couldn't find much meat in the Van Stokum stuff, but had a few concept thoughts. I'll share those with you for the odd chance they may sparkle.

First, I wondered what a ring laser would do to a Bose-Einstein condensate cloud. Seems like the team at Colorado could set up an experiment if they had a mind to do so.

Then, I wondered what a laser would do if directed down the inside of a tube with a highly reflective inner surface. You might adjust the angle of incidence to get a ring, or vary the angle of incidence ever so slightly to achieve a helix. What if the tube and its laser had a linear velocity in the direction of the length of the tube? Could be a new and incredibly accurate kind of accelerometer, maybe useful in your gravity wave seach?

Then I thought rather mildly about lasers and black holes. I suppose it would take a lot of kilowatts but would a properly devised laser affect the rotation of a black hole? What would the observable result be? Would the event horizen expand, contract, what? I guess you'd be adding energy so the hole would expand?

Then I looked for information on Van Stokum's cigars, but found only some comments, not the source, but it was late and I didn't search very far. I will try again.

The thing with an infinitely long cylinder is that as a rigid body it creates a frame of reference for simultanaety. Actually a sufficiently long cylinder would do the same. This would give us a clock which could measure the time simultaneously at two widely separate points in space. All sorts of bizarre questions come up. Relitivity is violated? Of course the technology to make a tube of this kind is unavailable. Maybe it would be made of unobtainium? I forget who coined the unobtainium idea, but I thought it was wildly hilarious when I first read about it.

Then I thought about a type III civilization building a really big unobtainium tube. Say the acceleration of the inner surface is at one gravity. It's a really big tube so you are small compared to the diameter, and you hardly notice any tidal forces. You walk around the ring inside of the tube quite comfortably. But if you try to veer off the ring to the right or left, your path in sidereal space becomes longer for each rotation. This means a change in velocity, with the usual acceleration and attendent energy cost. Even in a 'perfectly straight' tube, you will find yourself having to do work to move along the length of the tube. The lowest energy state will always be at rest with respect to the axis of rotation? So if you move right or left (parallel to the axis of rotation) you will have to do work, but forward and back (around the ring) require no extra effort. An object in motion around the ring will tend to continue to stay in motion, but an object in motion parallel to the axis will tend to settle into the nearest lowest energy state (return to ring-like motion) as soon as the force is removed.

Well that was my evening meditation, recounted for you this morning. I fell asleep somewhere along here and havn't really woken up again, as yet. It is a beautiful day, blue sky and breezy clouds, and I should be out in it. More likely, knowing my laziness as I do, I will go have a nice lie down.

Thanks,

R.

10. Mar 30, 2004

Staff Emeritus
http://www.physics.uconn.edu/~mallett/ [Broken] is Mallett's faculty site at University of Connecticut. He discusses several of his researches including the weak field calculation you mentioned Sol. Several other sites I found by googling contain speculations and one journalistic site says that he and a coworker are trying to build such a ringlaser as he described and thendemonstrate frame-dragging (and CTCs and thence time travel) experimentally in accordance with his theory.

AFAIK his theory is a serious study in GR math, was published in Physics Letters, and has not been refuted. Some other physicists are quoted as thinking the gravity of the laser light won't be enough to generate the effect. But I would think that Mallet, who calculated the effect, has so far got the last word on that.

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
11. Mar 30, 2004

sol2

Thanks Richard for eloquently speaking to the ideas that I have put forward. Your efforts are appreciated. Your first analyze contained some truths, and your second response on the subject to myself here, is greatly appreciated.

As Self Adjiont said in response to Kip Thorne, the realization in regards to general relativity and the continuited work here is important.

I continue to do research here to gain a better perspective, and being engaged in the responsibilties of life, information can be obtained, but only looked at in my spare time. I will be sharing this information here as well soon.

12. Mar 30, 2004

sol2

As I am doing my generalized research here, your link, was one that I captilized on, and maintain these links in my own forum.

Becuase of the amount of information that we have engaged in the past, the issue of negative energy materialized in my mind in accordance with a cosmological event.

On the one hand, we undertand critical density and how such factors recognized, cause the nature of space to react in a way. As well as this taking place, such an event like the bose nova, reveals this idea to me of what the supernova can do?

On a weak field measure, we get this sense in what Ligo might be able to detect, and we know this event is confined in regards to that critical density.

So two factors present themself here, and in defining this movenment in a vacuum sense, helps us to deal with what information is being released in the bulk.

Brane world takes on a whole new feature here in the dynamics of recyclical natures?

But getting back to the blackhole, and what is realized here in Unruh radiation. What value could such a cylinder recognize, when such event has created a worm hole? The dynamics here in the casimere plates speaks not only to gravitational consideration, but geometrical ones as well? The dynamics of the vacuum?

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@175.XbIibHv7OAu.0@.1dde3fed/15 [Broken]

Any corrections appreciated

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
13. Apr 1, 2004

rtharbaugh1

twinship

Space under construction: The twin ship problem

The basic problem is that one of a set of twins leaves Earth to travel at near-light speed, encounters time dilation due to relativity, and returns to find the other twin has experienced more time and is now "older." I wish to discover how to calculate this problem under variable conditions of acceleration. I have never worked through this problem before and am not sure of what mathematics is required, but hope to gather the information to solve the problem and present it here. Any helpful comments are solicited.

I will specify flat space and two engines, one, the thruster, providing forward acceleration, and the other, the "kicker," providing lateral thrust so that the ship moves in a circle.

The ship leaves Earth, travels in a circle, then returns to pass by near-Earth space at a high velocity.

For simplicity, I will assume that space is flat and that the entire trip can be accomplished without correction for extraneous mass or charge.

I will further assume that the thrusters are not limited by fuel considerations, but can continue to provide thrust within their frame of reference at a constant rate for any necessary length of time.

The problem now is to find the correct formulas, and then to determine how to calculate them.

I have the following formulae from DW, who tried to help me with this problem in another thread at

$$v = ctanh(\frac{\alpha \tau}{c})$$in the ship

$$v = \frac{\alpha t}{\sqrt{1 + \frac{\alpha ^{2}t^{2}}{c^2}}}$$ from the Earth

where:

$$v$$ = velocity

$$c$$ = speed of light

$$\alpha$$ = proper acceleration (as experienced by accelerated frame)

$$\tau$$ = time elapsed in accelerated frame

$$t$$ = time elapsed in rest frame

and for convenience, the term

$$(\frac{\alpha t}{c}) = \theta$$

DW says $$\theta$$ is known as rapidity.

I notice that $$\theta$$ is a dimensionless quantity, with terms for velocity above and below the fraction, so they cancel.

The two formulae can then be written as follows:

$$v = ctanh(\theta)$$in the ship

$$v = \frac{\alpha t}{\sqrt{1 + \theta^2}}$$ from the Earth

.

Last edited: Apr 11, 2004
14. Apr 2, 2004

John

Stephen Hawking says time travel is impossible. Then he says, “Maybe it’s possible.” At the same time he says, “Physics will never find the answers to the questions it is looking for, but it is fun to look.” Is this Stephen Hawking trying to plan for a comfortable retirement by not opposing the powers that be, who don’t want us to know?

There are some very simple answers to time travel. Richard eloquently described how time slows down. And he never described time going backwards. Stephen Hawking talked about imaginary time. Imaginary time is the time you are living in when you notice the time at another place is moving slower. You can only notice that in your imagination. In our imaginations we can stand outside of this universe, or outside this part of the universe and see time slowing down in another location. And we know we are right. Imagination is more accurate than what we see when inside a system. We don’t need long cylinders or worm holes. Just like you would slow a video tape down, everything on the tape is moving slower, but you have to be outside the video to see it.

Since the speed of time can change, we assume we can change its direction, like you can change the direction of a video tape. But we can’t. At the most basic level, time is entwined with inertia. Inertia comes from the idea “Is” which is the simplest idea. Inherent in the simplest idea is inertia, because it is and it is not something else. When you use force to make it something else, that will take time before becoming something else. You try to move a point particle to another location, and some time later, it arrives. The speed of light is the fastest that anything can move in the physical universe. The time it takes for a point to move to another point is the physical universe's definition of time. It moves at a limited speed because there is a limited amount of force. When you suck force out of a system by moving the system faster, we know physical time actually slows down. This gives us a clue that time is irrevocably connected to inertia. So, time is force acting on inertia. The force acts then the change occurs. You can't change that sequence. Even in the imaginary universe, where infinite force is possible, something does not change until a force attempts to change it.

In the imaginary universe with infinite force, time can move faster but still cannot move backwards.

What is most interesting is that when inertia is infinite, we can freely move forward or backwards in time. We can turn a book back to see what is happening on Page 10, or we can rewind the video tape, but we can’t change the words on Page 10 or the images on the tape, therefore the story in the book has infinite inertia. If the inertia of the system is infinite, we can move backwards in time. We only realize the power of this when we realize time and mass are irrevocably connected.

Inertia is infinite when mass is 0, because a character in a video or in a book has no mass and infinite inertia.

This fact, that inertia is infinite when mass is 0 gives us a new type of logic. Mass resists movement; so the definition of mass and of existence is that it resists change, except that change is the most typical thing mass and existence does. That brings in a different type of logic, in which a mass of 0 cannot be moved at all, and it has infinite inertia. This is the logic I have always lived in, and I have managed to create a background for this universe by thinking in that logic, but the way I think is why no one ever understood me. I am losing my health with little hope.

Last edited: Apr 3, 2004
15. Apr 4, 2004

sol2

Hello John,

In regards to Hawking, I came across this in regards the idea of "black hole creation in the colliders." Google title.

It started me thinking about those Kruskal Diagrams.

So in looking at this information,

BLACK HOLES CANNOT SERVE AS PORTALS TO OTHER UNIVERSES. That is the conclusion of Shahar Hod and Tsvi Piran (tsvi@vms.huji.ac.il, 011-972-2-6584233), two Hebrew University physicists who have performed the first detailed calculations tracing a black hole from the prelude of its formation to the development of its inner structure. Black holes have such large amounts of gravity that they irretrievably attract all objects that are closer than a point-of-no-return known as the event horizon. As Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking first showed, the insides of black holes must contain a singularity, which in its simplest form is a region of infinite density. Associated with a singularity is a boundary known as a "Cauchy horizon" beyond which it becomes impossible to predict the future trajectory of a particle with any reliability. Previously, some theorists have suggested the possibility that matter passing through the Cauchy horizon may encounter an "asymptotically flat" region, a region of relatively weak gravity such as our own, and then travel to other universes rather than get caught in a singularity. However, Hod and Piran have now supported previous indications showing that these Cauchy horizons are unstable; small disturbances in the black hole instantly transform them into singularity regions. In fact, their calculations suggest that generic black holes contain two singularities that are connected to each other so that all infalling matter reaches one or the other. (Hod and Piran, Physical Review Letters, 24 August 1998)

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1998/split/pnu386-1.htm [Broken]

it brings perspective to the questions of time.

I like Einsteins thoughts about the past and the future in the now though.

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
16. Apr 4, 2004

rtharbaugh1

Hi John and Sol

I am not ignoring you, I am just exhausted and not thinking clearly. My current plan is to continue working in the edit screen of my last post above this one (# 13 in this thread) , in regard to the twins paradox, until I feel I have some kind of understanding (ability to calculate?) or until I can't think about it any more.

Sol, I tried to follow the link about Kruskal diagrams but didn't find what you were pointing at. I'll try again when I have more sleep. (later edit: I found the diagrams, thanks Sol)

Thanks for Being,

Richard

Last edited: Apr 5, 2004
17. Apr 5, 2004

rtharbaugh1

John, you said "a mass of 0 cannot be moved at all, and it has infinite inertia."
You said "Inertia is infinite when mass is 0, because a character in a video or in a book has no mass and infinite inertia."

In respite of my overwhelming ignorance, I think I have a feeling for the sense of what you are trying to say. I am concerned, however, in as much as I have chosen to reply, that your use of the words "mass" and "inertia" may not fall under the current definitions. Not that I would care to restrict your use of words, but that I would be sure before I reply to the ideas that we are using comparable definitions, otherwise our attempt at communication will be useless.

Certainly a character in book or video (or other imaginary world) has no need to follow the rules of physics. Bill The Cat can go on with posthumous posturing practically forever, enduring uncountable hideous accidents and incidents without requireing so much as a change of underwear. I, and you, I assume, live in a less pliable world. If I soil my underwear, I had better change it or risk losing all but the fastest of aquaintences.

What I like about your thought expressed above is the idea that a charachtor, or a 'being' if I may use my choice of words, is pure concept and therefore has no mass. Then the following argument that such a being has infinite inertia, and so cannot be said to change, but may be said to return in time, so long as it is understood that a return in time for a being of infinite inertia means being doomed to repeat the exact same sequence of events again, without possibility of change.

Then can I assume that a being with less than infinite inertia, if such a thing can exist, has an ability to return to a past time and replay the video with an edit feature, so that Bill The Cat might spin left instead of right this time and so avoid being run over by the train? Probably Hawking would invoke a cosmic prank censor who would then go back a little further and provide a speeding autobus to do the dirty deed, thus keeping the future intact, and preventing the dreaded cosmic cosmetic disaster of split ends, or worse, split infinities.

Got to go wash dishes for tourists now. Thanks for being here.

R.

18. Apr 12, 2004

John

Thanks for the clear deconstruction of my thoughts. I feel that I can figure things out, but can’t clearly express them without someone asking good questions.

We have the idea of inertia, defined as absolute resistance to any movement. Yet, it can move at the slightest touch. We have the idea of nothing, defined as not even any space. Yet matter expands into nothing. If the definition I am working with is absolute resistance to movement, then movement is possible, but at a cost. If the definition of nothing is no space, then space is possible, but at a cost. If there is no mass, then there is absolute inertia, and ironically in those situations you can go back in time.

Which might make time, and the whole universe work exactly like mass and inertia. You can make a piece of mass go from one place to another in less and less time, but you can never make it get there before you act on it. I have imagined a whole universe based on mass and inertia.

We know repulsive force comes from pure mass and inertia, like an electron sent out at a velocity, and it pushes things away. All repulsive force works that way. But where does attractive force come from? You can’t shoot out a particle at light speed and have it pull something back to you. It can only push the thing away when it arrives.

The first anti-principle is inertia, absolute resistance to movement, which ironically causes movement to be possible. The second anti-principle is the infinite nothing, containing no space. If you push matter out into nothing, it springs back because it is expanding into no space. That is the attractive force. The attractive force comes from matter expanding away from matter, into nothing.

The atom doesn’t really work like a planetary system. We assume there is a magic force that causes the particles to attract. There isn’t. The reason they attract is because there is no space to separate into, ever, in the whole universe. All of space and all things are defined by points of matter separating into nothing. What really happens in an atom is that a proton is a hollow ball, think of a soccer ball, made of points of matter. Think of the black spots on the ball. Each point has a need to come back into the points around it and the ball wants to contract. The points that make up the surface of the hollow ball (energy shell) are expanding away from each other into nothing. They vibrate and cause the energy shell to expand. The energy shell is a proton.

Here is the best proof that protons are hollow balls made of points. Take ten quarters and arrange them on a flat surface as a solid, elongated hexagon. Four quarters are at the top and form a diamond with its long side from left to right. Make a similar diamond underneath. You’ve used eight quarters. Now fill in the two spaces in the middle with two quarters to make an elongated hexagon.

Incredibly, this structure is one-third of the surface of a hollow sphere. Cut an orange in thirds and lay the skin over the ten quarters. It fits. This is a quark, made of ten points of matter neatly arranged on a flat surface. Three quarks make an electron, and incredibly, three of these flat structures would make a perfect hollow ball if sewn together.

This is a major physics discovery, which didn't come from advanced math or super energy colliders. It came from looking at stuctures.

Last edited: Apr 13, 2004
19. Apr 13, 2004

rtharbaugh1

Hi John. I just now lost a page written to reply to the above, and havn't the energy to begin again. The gist of it was that I find it hard to describe what I see in my head, and I think you do too, but it seems to me that what you are seeing in your head is very like what I am looking at in mine. I had a lot more but it is gone.

I'll try to come back again after a night sleep.

Thanks,

Richard

20. Apr 13, 2004

budha3

thought

I believe that thought controled by intelligence created the universe, so i guess thought speed is faster that light speed and that thought is also the key to time travel