Jump to content

What could be brought back as proof of time travel


Recommended Posts

For example, if we all lived in the 1800's where the top technology at the time was a windmill (or whatever).

The stated example above is part and parcel to the problem that many people have with the topic of time travel. They're not familiar with either the history of technology or physical science other than what they've read on alt-sci Internet sites.

 

I know that you added the "or whatever" caveat after suggesting that windmills may have been the top technology of the 19th Century but its simply not a true statement - even though no one bothered to question it. People seem to think that right up to 1905, when Einstein introduced SR, the world was still entrenched in the Dark Ages scientifically. Therefore when they post an analogy using pre-20th Century technology to compare "now" with "before" the false premise is accepted and goes unquestioned. Needless to say, the technology of the 19th Century was a few centuries more advanced than mindmills. Analog mechanical computers used for capital ships' main gun fire control systems may have, arguably, been the top technology of the 19th Century though highly developed steam engines of all sorts may have been the top technology.

 

Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were direct extensions of the scientific research and development of the 19th Century. Einstein himself was fleshing out the restricted conclusions of Lorentz and Maxwell when he proposed Special Relativity. As far as science goes there's not a lot involved with modern electricity and magnetism (E & M) theory that a mid-19th Century physicist or post-grad physics student wouldn't understand. We might have to either alter our math notations somewhat to match what they expect or bring them up to speed with our notation but they would understand. Notation is arbitrary but the underlying science isn't.

 

I'm not trying to be pedantic for the sake of being annoying. The point is that we all too often make assumptions that aren't true and then apply them to would-be time travelers. Of course a time traveler could stop bye and present technology that is so advanced that we would not recognize it for what it is or understand the technology. But we would understand to some extent the science behind time travel itself if it was presented by the time traveler. Physical law is physical law. Whatever the actual solution they came to would have to be such that, as limiting situations, classical mechanics, Special and General Relativity, and quantum mechanics would also be solutions to their equations. If those limiting situations cannot be derived then their solution is wrong - and the would-be time traveler isn't.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The stated example above is part and parcel to the problem that many people have with the topic of time travel. They're not familiar with either the history of technology or physical science other than what they've read on alt-sci Internet sites.

 

I know that you added the "or whatever" caveat after suggesting that windmills may have been the top technology of the 19th Century but its simply not a true statement - even though no one bothered to question it. People seem to think that right up to 1905, when Einstein introduced SR, the world was still entrenched in the Dark Ages scientifically. Therefore when they post an analogy using pre-20th Century technology to compare "now" with "before" the false premise is accepted and goes unquestioned. Needless to say, the technology of the 19th Century was a few centuries more advanced than mindmills. Analog mechanical computers used for capital ships' main gun fire control systems may have, arguably, been the top technology of the 19th Century though highly developed steam engines of all sorts may have been the top technology.

 

Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were direct extensions of the scientific research and development of the 19th Century. Einstein himself was fleshing out the restricted conclusions of Lorentz and Maxwell when he proposed Special Relativity. As far as science goes there's not a lot involved with modern electricity and magnetism (E & M) theory that a mid-19th Century physicist or post-grad physics student wouldn't understand. We might have to either alter our math notations somewhat to match what they expect or bring them up to speed with our notation but they would understand. Notation is arbitrary but the underlying science isn't.

 

I'm not trying to be pedantic for the sake of being annoying. The point is that we all too often make assumptions that aren't true and then apply them to would-be time travelers. Of course a time traveler could stop bye and present technology that is so advanced that we would not recognize it for what it is or understand the technology. But we would understand to some extent the science behind time travel itself if it was presented by the time traveler. Physical law is physical law. Whatever the actual solution they came to would have to be such that, as limiting situations, classical mechanics, Special and General Relativity, and quantum mechanics would also be solutions to their equations. If those limiting situations cannot be derived then their solution is wrong - and the would-be time traveler isn't.

 

 

But we would understand to some extent the science behind time travel itself if it was presented by the time traveler. Physical law is physical law. Whatever the actual solution they came to would have to be such that, as limiting situations, classical mechanics, Special and General Relativity, and quantum mechanics would also be solutions to their equations.

Maybe but I would like to point out one thing to you. We too would have to be brought up to speed seeing as physics as we see it now might not be entirely accurate.

 

As far as science goes there's not a lot involved with modern electricity and magnetism (E & M) theory that a mid-19th Century physicist or post-grad physics student wouldn't understand. We might have to either alter our math notations somewhat to match what they expect or bring them up to speed with our notation but they would understand. Notation is arbitrary but the underlying science isn't.

Now, if we could not understand their math not being up to speed and all then maybe we would discount it entirely.

 

Of course a time traveler could stop bye and present technology that is so advanced that we would not recognize it for what it is or understand the technology. But we would understand to some extent the science behind time travel itself if it was presented by the time traveler. Physical law is physical law. Whatever the actual solution they came to would have to be such that, as limiting situations, classical mechanics, Special and General Relativity, and quantum mechanics would also be solutions to their equations. If those limiting situations cannot be derived then their solution is wrong - and the would-be time traveler isn't.

It is true we fear what we don,t understand or we discount it and not believe it. Also, it might be possible that a time traveler for what ever reason would not give you or anyone else all the facts that he had. For what ever reason he might be holding some things back. Then again he still would be discounted.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe but I would like to point out one thing to you. We too would have to be brought up to speed seeing as physics as we see it now might not be entirely accurate.

Actually there's no maybe about it. If a new theory is correct it must, at a minimum, have as limiting solutions the physics previously known to be correct to an approximation within the limits of its domain of applicability. As an example, you can derive Galilean relativity from Special Relativity in the limit as velocity approaches zero. You just add two velocities together, paying attention to the signs on the vectors and angles between the vectors (sin/cos functions), and you have an extremely close solution for the relative velocity. You used the "wrong" math and physics by modern standards but the answer is correct to a very good approximation.

 

If through a new theory the old theory(s) can't be derived then its flat wrong. Such a theory can't explain what we already know. Dead end.

 

Of course a time traveler (a real one) could pop in and lie about everything s/he says other than the fact that "I am a time traveler". Seems rather pointless but it could happen.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a new theory is correct it must, at a minimum, have as limiting solutions the physics previously known to be correct to an approximation within the limits of its domain of applicability.

 

If through a new theory the old theory(s) can't be derived then its flat wrong. Such a theory can't explain what we already know. Dead end.

so, are you saying that current physics cannot be correct via pure luck, or coincidence? how do you know this?

 

im not saying i disagree, but how can you be so sure? a google search of the keywords, "incorrect physics" tells that scientists dont agree with each other, except on the basic principles of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

 

monkeys and typewriters...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
so, are you saying that current physics cannot be correct via pure luck, or coincidence? how do you know this?

Fundamentally simple: Because it has been validated by experimental evidence.

 

a google search of the keywords, "incorrect physics" tells that scientists dont agree with each other, except on the basic principles of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

If said scientists continue to disagree with physics that has been vetted by experiment, over and over, then they are not worth much as scientists. Sure, there are "scientists" who still disagree that the earth is round (well, oblate spheroid to be precise), or that man never went to the moon. But if they continue to disagree in the face of many forms of experiment that they, themselves, can reproduce, then again I say they are not really scientists.

 

monkeys and typewriters...

If monkey's and typewriters came up with relativity, we could still verify it as we have Einstein's work. So now one must ask you: If the odds of monkeys and typewriters stumbling upon relativity are already astronomical, how unlikely would it be for them to also have gotten it right such that every experiment confirms it? At that point you would have to conclude that it is not random and those monkey's are brilliant physicists! :D

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fundamentally simple: Because it has been validated by experimental evidence.

i dont think you understand what i mean. let me tell you a story, maybe it will shed some light.

 

at the same time john titor was posting, i was modeling and working on the physics for the cars in a game called need for speed 3. no, i didnt work for ea. me, and another guy modded the game, and created the best cars on the net. we got pretty famous for making vehicles that were better than ea's own stuff. other modders would beg us to show them how we did it. we kept it a secret, and till this day, noone but us two know the secret. well, time to let the cat out of the bag...

 

we didnt know what any of that physics crap meant. we came in, and tested every value. after testing all of the values, we began to understand how it worked. we did a million times better than ea's programmers. during 2000-2002, i was so busy making cars, that i never got a break. i would get 100 emails a day from other modders, begging me to tell them the secret. i never did, because i kept my promise to never tell. since the game is too old for anyone to care anymore, its time to break that promise...

 

by changing certain values to negative numbers, we could actually make the cars levitate, like the delorean from back to the future. we even created one. by changing another value to a negative number, we could make the cars instantly reach 99999999999999999999mph just by letting off of the gas.

 

so, were we masters of the universe, or just tinkerers?

 

our stuff was validated by experimental evidence too, but to say we were correct is a bit of a stretch. we just wanted faster cars. experimental evidence can give you the results you want, but it takes more than that to prove it to be set in stone.

 

i consider physics the tower of babel. if you know what i mean.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont think you understand what i mean. let me tell you a story, maybe it will shed some light.

 

at the same time john titor was posting, i was modeling and working on the physics for the cars in a game called need for speed 3. no, i didnt work for ea. me, and another guy modded the game, and created the best cars on the net. we got pretty famous for making vehicles that were better than ea's own stuff. other modders would beg us to show them how we did it. we kept it a secret, and till this day, noone but us two know the secret. well, time to let the cat out of the bag...

 

we didnt know what any of that physics crap meant. we came in, and tested every value. after testing all of the values, we began to understand how it worked. we did a million times better than ea's programmers. during 2000-2002, i was so busy making cars, that i never got a break. i would get 100 emails a day from other modders, begging me to tell them the secret. i never did, because i kept my promise to never tell. since the game is too old for anyone to care anymore, its time to break that promise...

 

by changing certain values to negative numbers, we could actually make the cars levitate, like the delorean from back to the future. we even created one. by changing another value to a negative number, we could make the cars instantly reach 99999999999999999999mph just by letting off of the gas.

 

so, were we masters of the universe, or just tinkerers?

 

our stuff was validated by experimental evidence too, but to say we were correct is a bit of a stretch. we just wanted faster cars. experimental evidence can give you the results you want, but it takes more than that to prove it to be set in stone.

 

i consider physics the tower of babel. if you know what i mean.

Physics is limited to the math behind it. Example Darby and I talked about old notation and new notation. New areas of math over the centuries have come into existance to explain new areas physics or new mathematical concepts. Now days we get into new theories that can,t be experimented with so all the people in physics can do is debate them. And with technology now days using physics crimes against science and humanity are commited because the break throughs that are being made are kept secret for corporate or military use. With those break throughs there is no debate, no scientific papers or annoucements or news media coverage. It stays covered up. Mean while the public like here at this forum can only speculate why one or two people run around saying where is the proof? But I do agree that there is new math not invented yet to explain the new area of physics not well understood yet. It is just a matter of it getting invented and coming into the public eye and the public scientific eye.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
hunches dont go far in the scientific community, but i just have this hunch that 2+2 does not equal 4. call me crazy!

Well I won,t call you crazy but your right hunches don,t go far. But in physics there are two communities. The public community and the secret community. Physics has applications which are useful in the corporate or military worlds that is why they call it physics. Time is one of those applications that are investigated in both worlds. If a missile that could shoot down other missiles could use a gravity lens to distort space-time and look a couple of milliseconds or so into the future then that kill vechicle would have a big advantage over lets say the Russian missiles which are meant to be acrobatic and maneuverable in the air. That is an example of a military application using time. Now would the military want the Russians or public to know about this. No it would be classified. The scientific community would be prevented from sharing or studing in this physics break through. But sooner or later the public community will catch up. In the mean time there are many scientific theories or even alternative theories which people can buy into. It is like grocery shopping. Just pick what you want. This forum as RMT has pointed out to me is not the place to take on the scientific community. Your 2 + 2 does not equal 4 I can think of many things where this could be true. If the first 2 is of a different unit than then second 2 then the 4 unit or answer would be off. In AI applications neurons are programmed to have any answer at all to the inputs. So there 2 + 2 would not equal four. If the 2 was in a different base than the other 2 and the 4 answer was also in a different base then no 2 + 2 would not be equal to 4. 2 + 2 = 4 was only meant to apply to a single linear mathematical application it does not apply to all cases.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: What could be brought back as proof of time tr

 

But in physics there are two communities. The public community and the secret community.

This is the big problem. Only a few can say with certainty what the status of contemporary physics, or science in general is. Even if you put all of the stories off to the side (I liked the one about Grumman back-engineering 5 UFO's which they could never get quite right). still the U. S, Government has pumped hundreds of billions (maybe trillions) of dollars into basic research, an undetermined amount of which is classified (if you paid for the information it is your's to control, isn't it?)

 

I remember someone fairly recently making the comment that while anti-gravity research was going full steam in the 1980's, with a number of major players involved, it suddenly died out completely. See what you can find with Google.

 

Actually the idea of the free interchange of ideas only was valid for a century or so. In the ancient days "Knowledge was power", and it's even more so today.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
so, are you saying that current physics cannot be correct via pure luck, or coincidence? how do you know this?

No. As Ray pointed out, it isn't random luck or simple guesses. The physical theories make specific predictions and the predictions are born out by experimentation.

 

As an examle of what I mean by new physics must contain the old physics as a limiting situation is this:

 

Newton's definition of force is F = ma. The force is proportional to mass times acceleration. That equation worked extremely well for two hundred years. But by the middle of the 19th Century there were some problems discovered in E & M experiments that were somewhat at odds with the equation. By 1905 Einstein solved the problem.

 

In Newton's theory mass is a constant. It never changes. In Einstein's theory mass varies as a function of relative velocity. Add in the gamma factor and Newton's equation works out correctly. In situations where the velocity is close to zero relative to the speed of light you can drop the gamma correction entirely. In other words, you can derive Newton's equation for force from Einstein's equation for force. If you could not do so then Einstein's theory would be completely wrong because we already know that in the limit as velocity tends to zero Newton was correct.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
In Newton's theory mass is a constant. It never changes. In Einstein's theory mass varies as a function of relative velocity. Add in the gamma factor and Newton's equation works out correctly. In situations where the velocity is close to zero relative to the speed of light you can drop the gamma correction entirely. In other words, you can derive Newton's equation for force from Einstein's equation for force. If you could not do so then Einstein's theory would be completely wrong because we already know that in the limit as velocity tends to zero Newton was correct.

so physicists knew that something was missing out of the equasion, then they added something and got a definitive answer. what is missing now?

 

are you one hundred percent correct that physics is structured correctly? i understand that it has to be correct, but, are you sure that is not just a shell?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
so physicists knew that something was missing out of the equasion, then they added something and got a definitive answer. what is missing now?

Yes. Something was missing because the experiments under specific circumstances didn't work out correctly. The assumption in classical physics that both time and mass are constants measured to be the same for all obervers under all circumstances was the problem. The assumptions were incorrect.

 

What's missing now is a description of gravity that satisfies both general relativity and quantum mechanics. That's a tough one. Einstein worked on the problem for 50 years and didn't solve it. Together people have been working on the problem for 100 years. Still no solution. The big problem is QM. At the atomic level gravity is so weak that it is dwarfed into virtual non-existence by the EM and strong nuclear force by a factor of 10^42. In atomic and particlle physics gravity is totally ignored in the reactions because it plays no observable role. Yet it plays a huge role in macro physics because in the macro world the EM force tends to cancel itself because the + and - charges come in equal numbers while gravity appears to have just one "flavor" - attraction.

 

So there's the challenge. In one case, gravity is completely irrelevent yet in the other case it dominates. Both theories are so accurate and complete (within their domains) that there has never been an experiment that showed either to be wrong - not one, ever. But they are not correct. There has to be a third theory that combines the two in a consistent manner, gives a correct description of gravity and which also expands their domains.

 

are you one hundred percent correct that physics is structured correctly? i understand that it has to be correct, but, are you sure that is not just a shell?

We're 100 percent sure that our understanding of physics is wrong. We do not have the complete picture. But the picture that we do have is correct within the limits of its defined domain. How many times do I have to repeat that all scientific theories are approximations of reality? To the best of our understanding of physical laws, and especially quantum mechanics, every future theory will still be an approximation of reality with an expanded limit on its domain.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's missing now is a description of gravity that satisfies both general relativity and quantum mechanics.

If they ever find it then it is my belief that this information will not be shared with the mainstream scientific communicty and will be classifed as top secret.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they ever find it then it is my belief that this information will not be shared with the mainstream scientific communicty and will be classifed as top secret.

Uhhh...riiiight.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reactor,

 

If they ever find it then it is my belief that this information will not be shared with the mainstream scientific communicty and will be classifed as top secret.

The problem with this belief is that it is one-sided. One-sided in that you are not cleared for such information and as such you have no idea if the things you THINK are known and classified really are. I cannot help you deal with this. A person who is cleared for such information, and deals with pieces of it, knows very well why any of it that is classified is kept so. I am unable to help you experience that because of vows I took to protect my country's secrets. We both may not like it, but the reality is it protects not only both of us, but so many others of our fellow countrymen.

 

What I hope I can help you understand is why classifying information is not only good, but makes sense to protect many people. The bare fact is that ANY technology can be used for good or evil. We have discussed that at length on this site, when we talk about how it is your intention for how you use knowledge in your life that determines whether you "do good" or "do evil". If the US Government were to simply release any and all high technology that it develops, without concern for how people who wish to destroy our country could use it against us, that would be acting irresponsibly towards our Constitution, but more importantly to we the people.

 

In another post here, HDRKID calls attention to the very real fact that Al Qaeda is actively trying to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. This is another case where some people in the world wish to use high technology to kill other people and destroy their way of life. So if you can understand this, and you still think it is a "bad thing" for the US Government to keep some things secret........

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with this belief is that it is one-sided. One-sided in that you are not cleared for such information and as such you have no idea if the things you THINK are known and classified really are. I cannot help you deal with this. A person who is cleared for such information, and deals with pieces of it, knows very well why any of it that is classified is kept so. I am unable to help you experience that because of vows I took to protect my country's secrets. We both may not like it, but the reality is it protects not only both of us, but so many others of our fellow countrymen.

 

What I hope I can help you understand is why classifying information is not only good, but makes sense to protect many people. The bare fact is that ANY technology can be used for good or evil. We have discussed that at length on this site, when we talk about how it is your intention for how you use knowledge in your life that determines whether you "do good" or "do evil". If the US Government were to simply release any and all high technology that it develops, without concern for how people who wish to destroy our country could use it against us, that would be acting irresponsibly towards our Constitution, but more importantly to we the people.

 

In another post here, HDRKID calls attention to the very real fact that Al Qaeda is actively trying to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. This is another case where some people in the world wish to use high technology to kill other people and destroy their way of life. So if you can understand this, and you still think it is a "bad thing" for the US Government to keep some things secret........

True, but technology like science can only be kept under wraps for so long. Now, AlQaeda with anti-gravity technology and a nuke that would be real scary. If someone came back in time with this technology and displayed it or posted it im very sure you would turn them in so that to act responsibly toward our Constitution and more importantly to we the people. Please don,t take that the wrong way but from reading your post and seeing you be loyal to your country I take it that if you saw a real time traveler would you not turn that person in to the goverment to protect your country? Real power in the hands of one person is a dangerous thing as you pointed out.

 

===================================================================================

 

Well I will take your silence as a yes. I knew there was more to you than just scientific proof. Good day chief.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ruthless,

 

so, are you saying that current physics cannot be correct via pure luck, or coincidence? how do you know this?

I've given this one some more thought and have been trying to formulate an example that you can work through to see how real scientific discovery comes about and that its not just pure luck or chance.

 

Give this one a try and see how well you do. You've gained enough general physics knowledge over the past two years so I believe that you can work through it:

 

Imagine that you're Galileo circa 1590. You know that he was working with balls rolling down inclines, falling objects, acceleration and gravity. Think about the rules that he discovered. Don't worry about doing any math here. Just picture the event described and see how it should work according to Galileo's discoveries.

 

Now, Galileo, consider a pendulum. The weight at the end of the rod is 50 grams. You pull the weight back, say 20 degrees, and let it swing freely for a complete cycle. Assume that there is no air resistence/friction and that the fulcrum is an ideal bearing - its frictionless for all intents and purposes during one or two cycles.

 

The weight swings to the bottom and starts up the other side. Will it go farther, the same or less than 20 degrees? Why?

 

Now double the weight to 100 grams and swing the pendulum from the same 20 degree mark.

 

Will the pendulum swing faster and go farther than the 50 gram experiment? Why?

 

Don't Google pendulums. Galileo didn't have the Internet. ;) Don't do any physical experiments yet. Just think it through using the knowledge you already have about Galileo's experiments with acceleration and freefalling bodies. Your conclusions will be your hypothesis. After you have the hypothesis you can then test it against a real pendulum (experiment).

 

Once you get it right you will have discovered something new by extending and generalizing the knowledge that you already have. And that's how scientific discovery works in the real world. Its not pure luck or random.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, Galileo, consider a pendulum. The weight at the end of the rod is 50 grams. You pull the weight back, say 20 degrees, and let it swing freely for a complete cycle. Assume that there is no air resistence/friction and that the fulcrum is an ideal bearing - its frictionless for all intents and purposes during one or two cycles.

 

The weight swings to the bottom and starts up the other side. Will it go farther, the same or less than 20 degrees?

my guess is that it would move less than 20 degrees.

 

Why?

my guess is that it that gravity would not let it go back to its normal position. the energy would eventually dissipate.

 

Now double the weight to 100 grams and swing the pendulum from the same 20 degree mark.

 

Will the pendulum swing faster and go farther than the 50 gram experiment?

my guess is no. it may momentarily swing faster on the down swing, but it will also momentarily swing slower on the up swing.

 

Why?

gravity.

 

Don't Google pendulums. Galileo didn't have the Internet.

i didnt, but i already knew what a pendulum was.

 

now, i either got it totally right, or totally wrong. lets see...

 

The simple gravity pendulum[4] is an idealized mathematical model of a pendulum.[5] [6] [7] This is a weight (or bob) on the end of a massless cord suspended from a pivot, without friction. When given an initial push, it will swing back and forth at a constant amplitude.

so, i guess i was wrong.

 

Once you get it right you will have discovered something new by extending and generalizing the knowledge that you already have. And that's how scientific discovery works in the real world. Its not pure luck or random.

well, i guess you are right. i still feel like, at the very least, some variables are missing from physics.

 

spacer.png

 

its still hard for me to believe that this thing will go forever. thats kinda amazing. ill have to test that one out.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruthless:

 

There is a good exiperment I found on the internet one time called bending space-time in the basement. Under a painters latter a stick is suspended in mid air by a string and balanced very well. Now, you can put two objects close to the stick and the stick should turn(not swing) to the left or right to the bigger object. It is said this is for gravity reasons. It is called a torshin bar (Probably misspelled.) experiment. For testing gravity between specific objects mainly large ones this seems the way to go. Also, I think gravity can be tested with a scale and then there is the speed test where you drop something and clock its speed as it comes to the ground. On earth there is an acceleration of 32 feet per second. There are two ways to go in possible theory(s) on gravity. 1. the particle way believing it is caused by some type of particle like the graviton. 2. the EMF way which I showed an example in another post in the discussion section which is of my own belief. I actually believe that gravity is caused by both particles (Not the graviton) and by EMF. That they both work together to create gravity. Well thats my input.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Galileo (ruthless),

 

Let's pull back from the pendulum for a moment and think only about your experiments. You've been rolling balls down inclines and dropping balls off roofs and observing their behavior. Do you remember the time you dropped two balls of unequal weight off the roof at the same time? What happened? Which one hit the ground first? Or did one hit the ground "first"?

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

 

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."

 

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

 

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

 

A. Einstein

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...