On the note of string theory and proofs; remember that there are few "proofs" in science - only strong evidence in support of theories. For example, the CERN experiments will attempt to find evidence for (or against - either is equally informative) the Standard Model of Physics. We have no true proof (or at least, very little) that the models we have are true; we must base our models merely on what evidence suggests. There's a reason they're called models

As another example, the wave behaviour exhibited by light in the single- and double-slit experiments are "proof" that light is a wave, but the frequency-dependent energies of photoelectrons in the photelectric experiment are "proof" that light exists in small packets. If they were truly proofs, then they could not support apparently conflicting models. Instead, they act as evidence: interference and diffraction of light is evidence that light behaves as a wave, but the photoelectric effect provides evidence that light also behaves as if its energy in quantized. The resultant model is particle-wave duality, but this was formed in the 20th century. Remember that the corpuscular theory was around for a while before the wave theory came along, and eventually even that got owned by Einstein and Planck.

So even if string theory provided evidence for one thing, the fact that it's a theory (and not an agreed upon one, as far as i know) in itself means that we don't have proof of anything. In science, we will never know anything for sure, and there are flaws in most theories.

Apologies for the long post!

they say the universe is estimated to be 14 bilion years old

they look to the edge of the universe, where they see it is expanding. with some pretty brain-vaporizing calculations they measure the rate at wich it is expanding, then calculating the gap between where they see it is expanding and where the universe actually is expanding "what we see in space happens # years(time) ago  where the # depends on the distance you are looking at.... even light has a speed,  it takes +8 minutes for sunlight to reach the earth

becuase the expanding is so far away the light of that event is still underway, so when we look at the expanding edge, that event hapend milions of years ago, the expanding edge is actually further, but becuase the light is still underway we cant see it, and when that light does eventually reach us... in another milion years, the edge again has expanded further, with the light of that event again being underway to us  etc.etc.etc.

something wich expands must have a start..... thus the Big bang theory is applied..... first there was nothing..no light  no dark, no mass.. nothing

then the universe is born  immediatly expanding itself light and dark particles exist, when the 2 collide matter is created,  matter can be considerd.. a residue

now simply put,   using everything stated above

the age is roughly the time it took to reach where it is now from it's starting point "big bang"

considerd... ofocurse... that the universe is growing at a constant rate

we are in no position to proof that for example lightspeed is possible,   we havent experienced it,  we cannot recreate it... we cannot achieve lightspeed "or try achieve it" to see if it's possible

however  we can speculate,

einstein theorized lightspeed is unachievable,  mass is converted to energy when it reaches that speed

how did he know that? it must react that way if other facts are to remain intact....and facts... as the word says... are pretty much proven, dont go asking me wich facts....  ím not that smart....

maybe they'll clone einstein once... usin pieces of his brain... "wich they still have... sliced up in numerous jars..... for those that r interested......"

Not by a long shot! But, i'll risk an indirect candidate; Black Holes.

Where Light can't escape -- sounds to me like a Void outside the Universe. If we were to include all occurances of BH as being inside the universe.

Occam's Razor situation again.

Egg before chicken type of stuff.

Lemme explain...

There is evidence that super massive Black Holes roam somewhere in the vast distances between here & nowhere... indicating that *some* mass can be located in hyper_giga_near infinitely condensed form.

Thus, the Universal missing weight physicians have been sooooo keen into finding if only to confirm the big-bang model.

Now, postulate that THIS entire mass as a whole is in a state of Chaos (or as some could put in - moving in incoherent patterns) that **must** be located in the dimensional realm(s) where Strings snap it all (whatta coincidence, but this is a fact) right back to chaotic states for eternity.

Doesn't this imply to you that a single force *OUTSIDE* (such as the void - along with multiple megastrings residing in it, btw - i mentioned earlier) has to be interacting with this universe until at least we can safely assume it is a rational demonstration of its presence or even, that the fluctuating nature of these phenomenons are the cause for mass lack calculations?

That sortof metaphysical concept is the starting point where Strings snapout the very fabric of Space (IIRC, *causing* the Big-Bang) to create successive singularities -- conclusion; multiverse theory.

Exactly!

Darn, i really should contact my Cable provider to get the PBS-Vermont feed if only to have that Nova show on every tuesday evenings --

About Einstein theory related to the lightspeed limit, i have my doubt... Why ? By example, in 2000, a speed 300 time the lightspeed was reached... but it don't make the Einstein theory wrong... no matter or no information ( have some doubt about it ) can go faster that light speed... energy seem to be able go faster that light ( laser beam is energy and it was 300 time faster that light )... maybe some other thing can go faster that lightspeed...

Some interesting articles :

- Beam smashes light barrier

- Faster than a speeding light wave

- Very good article : Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible ?

- More funny, walk faster that a light beam : Putting the brakes on light

Why do i have doubt...

C is the speed of light in the vacuum... Outer Space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum, but it is not a perfect vacuum... not even in interstellar space where there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter... Quantum theory sets limits for the best possible quality of vacuum, predicting that no volume of space can be perfectly empty.

So, speed of light in space  ( who is not a perfect vacuum ) will be lower that c ... Nothing say that we cannot be able to travel at a speed superior to the speed of light in space and inferior to C... by the way, in so case, i will be able to see the past...

Now, some will think that it is not possible to go faster that the speed of light in a medium if we travel in the same medium... Wrong... While relativity holds that the speed of light in a vacuum ( who don't exist ) is a universal constant (c), the speed at which light propagates in a material may be significantly less than c. For example, the speed of the propagation of light in water is only 0.75c. Matter can be accelerated beyond this speed during nuclear reactions and in particle accelerators. Cerenkov radiation results when a charged particle, most commonly an electron, travels through a dielectric (electrically insulating) medium with a speed greater than that at which light propagates in the same medium. The blue glow in the "swimming pool" of nuclear reactor is Cerenkov radiation, emitted as a result of electrons traveling faster than the speed of light in water.

So, since Outer Space is not a perfect vacuum, speed of light in space is lower that c ( who is a mathematical constant, no real light have never reach c )... The Cerenkov radiation show that travel faster that light is possible when related to the same medium but without go over the c constant... so, let say that speed of light in the outer space is 0.9xC... if i reach the speed of 0.99xC, i will be 9% faster that light in the outer space... it mean that i will able to see the past ( no changing it because it have already happen )...

einstein theorized lightspeed is unachievable,  mass is converted to energy when it reaches that speed

Nope... mass grow with the speed... but any object with a rest mass superior to zero will need a infinite amount of energy for reach the theorical limit of C ( have explain up that same light never reach C due to the fact that perfect vacuum don't exist )... it is why photon have a mass when they move but once they stop move, these mass is fully converted to energy... a photon cannot exist when it don't move since it have a rest mass who is null...

And God said:

Ñ × E = ρ/ε₀

Ñ × B = 0

Ñ ´ E = – ∂B/∂t

Ñ ´ B = µ₀ J + µ₀ε₀ ∂E/∂t

And there was light!

Bah jumping into a conversation like this 3 pages in is hard. I feel an urgent need to answer all dangling questions from 3 pages

Defining the relationship between time and space is not even remotely similar to the relationship between up and down, in and out, good and evil. Good and evil are concepts; up and down, in and out are all spatial directions.

However, answering the question, "what is the relationship between time and space" is extremely difficult. We actually do have a good understanding of the relationship, but how do you explain to a regular person what takes most people years of study and contemplation to fully understand? I could list the equations of special relativity, or more generally with the equations of general relativity. But I'd also have to include the equations of relativistic quantum mechanics, and quantum field theory. And then I'd have to explain them, which would require textbooks worth of exposition...

Suffice it to say that time and space are inextricably and fundamentally linked, and they are interchangible... fluid... in the sense that they warp and convert between each other at high speeds and under strong gravitational forces. Time literally proceeds slower on the surface of the Earth than it does out in orbit; and space is bent more and more the closer to Earth it is - and the rate at which time proceeds is directly connected to how bent space is - you can't affect one without affecting the other. Likewise, if you jump in a spaceship that goes 90% the speed of light, lengths will literally shrink, and time will proceed slower for you. These effects aren't just percieved, they are entirely real.

Kurenkino's explanation involving E=Mc^2 is not really right... It seems like an attempt to explain something in very simple terms that cannot be explained so simply. E=Mc^2 is however related to the relationship between time and space - the equation was derived from Einstein's original relativistic equations.

Light/photons/Electromagnetic waves have no intrinsic/proper/rest mass. This means that an observer in the rest frame of a photon would measure a mass of zero. In other words, if you were moving in the exact same speed and direction as a beam of light, you would measure zero energy - the light wouldn't exist! Light cannot exist at rest. The reason light follows a curved trajectory around gravitational sources can be explained in several ways. One is that gravitiy bends space itself, and so light is bent with it. Another is that light is directly affected by gravitational forces because it has relativistic mass (/energy).

@Zyxpsilon - nothing has been proved by String Theory or M-Theory or whatever. Anything that has to invoke any of those theories is automatically pure speculation. Interesting, maybe, but nowhere even remotely close to proven or even supported.

Gamma ray bursters produce light all over the electromagnetic spectrum including visible light. And they have indeed been visible to the naked eye. It just so happens they're one of the few phenomena that produce an enormous amount of gamma radiation as well, hence their name.

No known source, no. But there is an extremely good chance that we should be able to see neutrinos through the CMB. The CMB is the first EM radiation that was emitted when the universe became transparent to photon radiation; but the universe became transparent to neutrino radiation long before that (neutrinos pass through thins has dense as the cores of stars with close to no resistence - light gets trapped in similar environments for millions of years).

We know nothing about what is beyond the observable universe, and we cannot know. People have predicted what might be beyond the observable horizon. It's not unreasonable to assume that it's just more of the same - in fact, it would be really bizarre if things were any different, but we really don't know. It's theorized that everything we see is just one big thermally coupled region, and that other regions of the universe that we can't see could be totally different in all sorts of ways. But in the end, we don't know, and probably can't know all that much about it. Plus like you mentioned it's possible that the universe wraps around itself and all sorts of weird funky things.

Yeah, it's called reductionism. It's the process of generalizing theories as more information is discovered/made available and theories are refined. The older theory isn't ditched, it's just relegated to the domain in which it's a good approximation. At first Newton's Laws were universally valid - then it was realized they're not, but they are still incredible approximations in the domain of 'normal' speeds and sizes, while general relativity and quantum mechanics now fill larger domains that contain Newton's Laws' domain. However, we're also now well aware that there are problems with both quantum mechanics and gravity, which means that they either need to be further refined, or we need another paradigm shift to shake things up again.

Extraordinarily unlikely. It can't account for the effects of what we call Dark Matter, because the effects we see don't even remotely resemble the effects of supermassive black holes (which, by the way, are only though to exist at the centers of galaxies, not just floating around aimlessly). They are also extraordinarily unlikely to account for what we call Dark Energy, because quite frankly, Dark Energy is thought to push things apart, not pull them together, and in a uniform way; none of these effects could be explained by some black holes scattered across the universe.

Also, white holes are purely theoretical and we've never seen anything at all that could be remotely construed as a white hole. It seems kind of odd that we'd see plenty of black holes - which are hard to see - and not a single white hole, which should be bright beacons of light.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but going faster than the speed of light in a medium is not going to make you go backwards in time. Theoretically, if you could go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, you would travel backwards in time; but if you slow down light by sending it through, well, anything, and then proceed to go faster than it, you aren't going to do anything but produce a whole lot of czerenkov radiation (which is more or less an eletromagnetic wake).

Also, interesting factoid: interstellar space is not the closest thing to vacuum in the universe. No, it's also not intergalactic space. The closest known environment in the universe to a true vacuum is inside the beam tubes of the Large Hadron Collider. Man made! I find that cool.

...Mind if I ask what field you did your thesis in?

Vast distances between here & nowhere -- isn't equal to -- (just floating around aimlessly), btw.

Mathematics.

(PS; The calculations necessary to get at StableG => VariableT weren't really much different than a slight extrapolation of E=mc² + the Universal Constant multiple value(s), in fact -- but i doubt it matters that 45+ pages worth of ∑ & approximations on infinity loops or trying to explain the fundamental difference between the Void concept (suggested earlier) and the generally guessed total weight of this (i shall insist on that term, ours - in the present - rationalized in whatever reality i perceived or speculated about) Universe would be useful to any of us)

The 70's are long gone, anyway!

Is Time a dimension? Might be a better or the only way to answer the above question.

Get your reasoning in gears and start at the beginning for me, please; the usual Space-Time continuum.

http://www.answers.com/topic/spacetime

(Refer to the Columbia Encyclopedia definition)

Then, prove to me that any equation MUST have comparable elements to formulate valid concepts.

This wasn't about comparing time with Gravity. It was about exposing the relational factor between any given type of extra dimensions from a list that includes Time & Mass (as in missing) & Gravity & Strings, etc -- that can only occur within a less than value of infinity.

Arrrggghhh - i KNOW some are there. But, let's zap together in a hypothetical future for a simple demonstration; what if the darn phenomenal & super-massive singularity gobbles up your exemplary galaxy that was roaming around when we observed it?

Where is it now?

It was based on how far the farthest star is.