If we're going to use a radio transmission analogy to explain your method of travel, what receives, translates and reassembles the transmission when you travel to a time before the invention of your gadget?I use a Matter Pillar, which sends me like a TV signal.
You experience no proper time during your journey? Can you give us the 'modified' Lorentz Transformation for 't' that describes this change in theory?I have been traveling through for about 20 years. I should be 40 years old, but when I finally decide to return to my own time, I will not have aged, I will still be about 18.
Given the previous quote, what possible necessity would there be for medication?Time traveling however, can also instigate diseases, but there are medications for these.
How odd. English, a Germanic – not a Romantic language, would devolve to a form of Franco-Italian German without German evolving to the new Germanic language directly. Are you sure about this?English has also died out a long time ago. It is concidered an ancient and dead language. Other languages have come from English, my native language is a denomination that evolved from English.The quote which I keep below is from the major language of the world, which I believe is much simpler to read and pronounce than English is.
Juäßgen essen J'ai hören nicht auf mäßng Määteän n'coutent pas des gens comme
celui qui vous dieses erklärt.
Uh...yeah. I believe you.trollface-for the bloodiest war thing I am sure that you said "the bloodiest war that concerned americans".
Are you the historian or am I?Is the war in rwanda the one when 900,000 people were massacred in a short time and the UN pulled out?
If it's the most widely and/or the most commonly-spoken language on the planet (and you've still not told me which or if it's both), then I find it hard to believe that you don't speak even a few phrases, if you're supposed to be an academic. It's certainly what's true of English in our time.As for arabic, whats wrong with me not speaking arabic? just because it is the most spoken language does that mean I have to know it?
You're an expert in this time period and you don't even know a fact like this for sure? What do you know?I thought half of canada spoke english and the other spoke french?
What's "proper" Communism, as you understand it? Again, are you talking about Socialism, Marxism or what? And who on Earth said that you can't own your own businesses under Communism? That's kind of what the idea behind the concept is, you know, the workers controlling the Means of Production and all of that. Don't tell me that once again you're spouting off about something that you don't know enough about to be convincing, are you?It isn't proper communism, we just share the food out and we can still have money and own our own business.
Wow! How long did it take you to come up with that one?We don't exactly travel at light speed but we just named it that because people couldn't think of anything else to name it.
Okay, so...how come there have been huge nuclear reactions many times as fierce and hot as the sun in the moon and nobody on Earth has noticed? How come that this element formed naturally on a dead and chemically simple satellite when not even a Supernova is explosive and complex enough to form such an element?if you do not come from my time then you will think everything is impossible but if you have seen what I have seen then you will know that many things are possible.
Okay, this should be fun. How?We can eaily increase the lifespan of elements in my time.
That is not "how", that is repeating what you said before I asked you how. Maybe I need to put it in more simplistic terms for you. What did you change into what? Is Everest now an ocean of mineral water that grows special algae? Is the ocean now a towering mountain covered with grasses and wildlife? How did terraforming solve the issue of greenhouse gases?We terraformed the planet to get rid of greenhouse gases. that is how.
How good the clocks are is neither here nor there with regards to time dialation through movement. You can say what you like about relativity being bunk, but it has been proven. There is no doubt. As a body accelerates towards light speed time passes slower for that object than for a stationary one. I will say this once more, in the hope that it will sink in: THIS IS A PROVEN FACT. There is no dialogue about this. It is something that is true, and has been shown irrefutably to be true.Whatever you say. we have better clocks for measuring time in my time.
So, when you say that you're going "faster than the speed of light 33 seconds", what exactly do you mean? Which speed of light are we talking about now, the new one or the old one? How come speed is measured in seconds, now? Or do you mean that you go forwards 33 seconds in time? Compared to what? Why mention it as a measure of speed? 33 seconds per what? Do you mean that no matter how much faster than the speed of light you're travelling and no matter the distance you always go ahead in time 33 seconds? How does that work? Would that be covered by the new theory of relativity? Do you mean that you arrive 33 seconds before you leave, or 33 seconds before you would have arrived, were you not travelling in time?33 seconds as in our time.
Um, you're claiming to be a time-traveller. One whose "research" consists of watching TV and stalking groups of people. Here's a tip; buy a video recorder. You can then take back the tapes with you and study them at your leisure.Describing ships would take too long[...]
I think you're thinking fo Esperanto. Which was huge in the 1960s, so I find it odd that you don't know the name of it, you being an expert in the time period, and all.There is a language but I can't remember the name that was created centuries ago that has a bit of every language in it. The person who invented it hoped that everyone on earth would speak it.
You know, you could just keep this on your clipboard and cut and paste it in answer to pretty much every question you're asked.I don't understand what you just said about the time machine.
No they're not. Take the example of right here and now. The most commonly spoken language at the moment is Chinese (Mandarin, to be exact) because it is the language spoken by the largest number of people on the surface of the planet (more than a million). However, the most widely spoken language is English, because it is spoken over the greatest distribution of the globe (it is actually spoken by about half the number of people who speak Mandarin). That's the difference.Arabic is the most spoken language. commonly and most widely spoken are the same.
You can't even write a consise paragraph or two on the topic of your choice from the 20th Century? So, you're an expert in the time period, but can't even give me any insight into any single thing of your choice from this time period?I am not writing an essay for you.
Again, I'm going to ask for the name of the philosophy you're talking about. Give me a name, don't just repeat yourself.proper communism is when no one can be rich, everyone is the same.
See, as I understand it, Communism in almost all of it's forms actually involves not having a state at all. Once more, I'm going to ask for the name of this philosophy under which your society operates, and I want the name of which brance of Communism it's supposed to have evolved from.everyone gets an equal amount of everything and the state owns all business but we just share the food out.
"Laymen's terms" does not mean "explain as if to a child and repeat yourself". One might almost think that you can only parrot back what you've already said because you've realised that you don't have the imagination or knowledge to say any more.We travel light speak by mixing lunarium, francium, hydrogen and water together which makes an incredible reaction which creates lots of energy. The energy then blasts us off anywhere we want to go.
So you're saying that 10,000 light years travelled in an hour is what is now called "light speed"? Why was such an arbitrary unit used? Why was that speed chosen? And, travelling at this new "light speed", you can cover 2.9 million light years in an hour? I knew your maths was bad, but that's quite a blatant mistake. You want to up your figure by about 290.We measure light speed by 10000 light years per hour so if we travel at 10000 light years per hour we measure it like 1LYPH.
No, elements work in very boring, predictable ways. I'm sorry, but the things you have been saying about "Lunarium" would have been accepted in a 50s Sci-Fi horror, but this is that naughties and we're a little better educated than that.Elements work in strange ways and can be found in any conditions.
You talking about how you alter the half-life of elements? Nice try. What you have to answer is what you do to it on the atomic level? How do you extend it's half-life?We put it in this machine called a transformer which bends it, reshapes it and puts it back how it was and cover it with dry water then shine red light on it. It is more complicated than that put thats the only way I can put it.
So you were combatting greenhouse gases by doing something that does nothing whatsoever to the atmosphere? How does that work? And, at the exact same time that you were combatting this global warming by doing something that doesn't affect it at all, you were also combatting an ice age? So the planet was simoultaniously overheating and cooling down? How does that work?When we terraformed the planet we froze more of the north and south pole so less land would be covered by water and we did something else to the sea which stopped the ice age in europe.
Yes it does.so what if the theory of relativity was proven, in means nothing.
You really don't know your physics, do you? Think about it...if people "knew" that the atom was the smallest thing, then why would they be trying to split it? Do you really think that science is scientists just trying random things with no idea of what they're doing?About 80 years ago you knew that the atom was the smallest thing, thats until you split the atom.
Okay, that's one part answered. I'm not going to bother with this, as you only answered the easiest part of the questioning. I'll re-ask everything you've ignored at the end of this post, and show you how to make sure you don't miss or ignore any questions in the future.It takes 1 hour to get to andromeda from earth but really it takes 59 minutes and 27 seconds.
All I have seen is evidence of you "forgetting" things. You're supposed to be an expert in this timeperiod, and it seems that you do not know one single thing about it. you even refuse to say anything about the subject of your choice. I could hardly make it easier for you, and you still are not up to the challenge.I just forgot the name of Esperanto. I am entitled to forget a couple of things aren't I?
Well, I suppose it's only 12 questions from that last post that you missed, presumably by accident. That they were the most important ones, and the more difficult ones, I'm sure was just a coincidence. Now you know how to use this board properly with the UBB quote tags and cut and paste options, I'm sure you'll have no problem answering every single one of my questions this time, without accidentally missing any.Any excuse for the other two questions?[...]if the new "speed" is called "light speed", then what do they call light speed?
[...]why didn't they just call the new "light speed" by the new name that the old "light speed" has?
[...]isn't it stupid to have the speed of light called something else and somethign else called "light speed"?
[...]how come there have been huge nuclear reactions many times as fierce and hot as the sun in the moon and nobody on Earth has noticed?
How come that this element formed naturally on a dead and chemically simple satellite when not even a Supernova is explosive and complex enough to form such an element?
You will need to explain how [Einstein] was wrong, what is right, who sucessfully proved him wrong and when, and what on Earth has been up with all the experiments that have been done over the years which have proven him right time and again?
[...]you can tell me what the new equasion [that replaced "E=mc^2] is and what any and all of the elements that are new signify.
Which speed of light are we talking about now, the new one or the old one? [i'll add a second question to this actually. If we're talking about the new "speed of light", then what is the significance of that speed, and what would be significant about travelling at that speed that would relate to time travel?]
How come speed is measured in seconds, now?
Do you mean that no matter how much faster than the speed of light you're travelling and no matter the distance you always go ahead in time 33 seconds? How does that work?
Would that be covered by the new theory of relativity?
See, I'd have thought it would be the most commonly-spoken one as of this time. A quarter of a million people speak Modern Standard Arabic, usually as well as their own dialect. Isn't it strange how all these unlikely things seem to have come true all the time? How come the Gulf dialect overtook it?I don't really know any dialects of arabic but I think it is the gulf dialect.
What do you mean? If you blast off like a rocket, then you expel the energy as propulsion. In which case the reaction wouldn't be confined anywhere. And if the energy is confined somewhere then how do you convert that energy to kinetic energy?We do blast off kind of like a rocket and it doesn't destroy the objects around it because the reaction is confined to a small space in the engines.
I meant, how do you steer?We have star charts and external sensors for navigating.
Ha! Nice try. I don't happen to have an infinite amount of energy sitting around, nor any process by which I might generate an infinite amount of energy, so I think you're safe in assuming that I'm not about to put whatever you say into practice. Now, seeing as it is impossible for a body that is travelling at subluminal speed to accelerate to luminal or superluminal speed, yet you claim it can be done, I'd like you to explain how.If I told you how we overcame your laws of physics then you might change history.
The faster anything is moving, the more massive it is. If an object with mass were to accelerate up to lightspeed, it would have an infinite mass when it reached lightspeed. How do your shields conteract this?We don't have a weight problem but if we did I think the shields would stop it.
Easier to understand than what? To who? And who chose it?That speed was chosen because it is easier to understand.
You said that travelling at "light speed" it would take you an hour to get to Andromeda. You then said that "light speed" meant something different in your time. And then you said that "light speed" in your time meant 10,000 light years per hour. So one of your statements has to be wrong. There's no way around it, I'm afraid.I did not make a mistake because it would be shown as 290lyph.
Unfortunately for you, I'm not talking about things that are theory. I'm talking about basic, known things. The same kind of basic, known things that allow us, as a race, to do such things as create elements, split the atom, create electron microscopes, use electricity, use magnets, watch TV...in fact, a hell of a lot of what is possible these days. Before trying to sidestep this, remember if what we know now is wrong, as you claim, then electricity doesn't work. Care to explain that? How do you overcome the Kelin variable?Actually the elements that we have that you don't can be found in any conditions. You should stop thinking all of your theories are correct when some aren't.
You don't even know what a "half-life" is, do you? The temperature of the element is not going to affect the half-life at all. If it did, nuclear power would be really safe. Try answering that again.We cryogenically freeze the lunarium first then do the things to it and I don't think it has a life of half a second.
I don't think that every theory has to be right. I'm open to new theories, if they're even slightly credible. Yours are not. The size of the polar ice caps will not affect gases in the atmosphere at all. This is basic, basic stuff. And your defence of hiding behind my "believeing every theory", besides being a spectacular Straw Man throughly unworthy of someone who is supposed to be an academic and being a tactic that wouldn't even be accepted as sound for an A Level, let alone graduate or post graduate course, and certainly not a member of the academic community...besides that, what it is comparable to is telling someone that they can't possibly understand your new complicated maths because they still cling to the old-fashioned idea that 1+1=2, and yet you won't tell them what 1+1 is supposed to equal.We were doing other stuff to halt global warming but it is hard to explain to people who think that every theory has to be right.
"Most people" did, did they? What, even most scientists?Most people thought the atom was the smallest thing but not everyone, you should not believe everything science thinks is true.
Is this how much attention you pay to your research? I said, and I'll quote:You never said I could make an essay on anything of my choice, all you said was make it on hip hop or other music.
I then suggested the origin of rap, as it's something that you've already said you're interested in, fascinated by, even.But if you could explain how come you don't know these things, and maybe give an outline of some event that you do know about. You're an academic and a historian, so I assume you'll be able to make it consise, interesting and not at all vague.
Faster, but far more vague and allowing considerable errors in communication both ways. Again, are you not interested in effective communication? How on Earth do you manage to work?I might start using the quote things but I think this is a faster way to type
See? Through you not using the quotes function, you've accidentally not answered 19 of my questions, now. You can see how much you miss. And, as I'm going to be re-asking any and evrything that you don't answer from now on, you'll save a lot of time in the long-run just answering the questions when they're asked, especially as you must find it as frustrating as I do when you forget to answer one. So I'm sure you'll co-operate and make things easier all round, won't you?Again, I'm going to ask for the name of the philosophy you're talking about. Give me a name, don't just repeat yourself..
Once more, I'm going to ask for the name of this philosophy under which your society operates, and I want the name of which branch of Communism it's supposed to have evolved from.
.
How is the energy converted into motion?
.
As E=mc^2, how does altering the amount of energy that you can have at any one time enable you to accelerate beyond the speed of light?
.
What you have to answer is what you do to it on the atomic level? How do you extend it's half-life?
.
So the planet was simoultaniously overheating and cooling down? How does that work?
.
If that wasn't true, as you claim it isn't, then splitting the atom would be impossible.[Not technically a question, but it demands an answer all the same]
.
Any excuse for the other two questions?
.
[...]if the new "speed" is called "light speed", then what do they call light speed?
.
[...]why didn't they just call the new "light speed" by the new name that the old "light speed" has?
.
[...]isn't it stupid to have the speed of light called something else and somethign else called "light speed"?
.
[...]how come there have been huge nuclear reactions many times as fierce and hot as the sun in the moon and nobody on Earth has noticed?
.
How come that this element formed naturally on a dead and chemically simple satellite when not even a Supernova is explosive and complex enough to form such an element?
.
You will need to explain how [Einstein] was wrong, what is right, who sucessfully proved him wrong and when, and what on Earth has been up with all the experiments that have been done over the years which have proven him right time and again?
.
[...]you can tell me what the new equasion [that replaced "E=mc^2] is and what any and all of the elements that are new signify.
.
Which speed of light are we talking about now, the new one or the old one? [i'll add a second question to this actually. If we're talking about the new "speed of light", then what is the significance of that speed, and what would be significant about travelling at that speed that would relate to time travel?]
.
How come speed is measured in seconds, now?
.
Do you mean that no matter how much faster than the speed of light you're travelling and no matter the distance you always go ahead in time 33 seconds? How does that work?
.
Would that be covered by the new theory of relativity?
Now you state:The weather is unstable.
Ahhhhh, so all of a sudden you can change the weather. So which is it yes or no.When we terraformed the planet we froze more of the north and south pole so less land would be covered by water and we did something else to the sea which stopped the ice age in europe.