Paul, the hole is the rip, the rip is the hole! So the rip moves.. hehe. kinda like a tree with a scar, it doesn''t leave a long trail of scar, it just moves up and out as the tree moves up and out

As far as black holes eating up the universe.. it''ll happen if they work the way we think they do. But you could also imagine, at the center of our universe may be another black hole.. or should i say, a white hole. it''s the end point of another black hole, and it''s pushing some other universe into ours.. and our black holes are pushing our universe into others. Just wait.. we''ll go through some day to find out they''re a complex system of portals all in a circle and interconnected.. and they NEVER will run out because on takes from another which takes from another which passes it back to the first.. whee!

J
p.s. how''s it feel to be in a big cosmic juicer?!

Is it actually possible to cool something to absolute zero? That implies that it has zero thermal energy but can it not still contain kinetic energy from gravitation? If this isn''t possible then does that mean absolute zero isn''t possible? Or does it mean that absolute zero means that gravity doesn''t apply either - ie the mass doesn''t even exist -> converted to energy -> moving at speed of light -> has energy anyway therefore not true? Plus, seeing as all motion is relative anyway, and assuming that u are saying that mass won''t go anywhere under the condition of absolute zero does that mean the universe theoritically poofs out of existance? Because for all we know - if there is something the edges of what we define as reality (mass) is expanding to, then does that mean this "nothing" (not mass) is considered to be stationary?
screw that.

Absolute zero is either one of two things

a) Impossible
b) Totally unrelated to the gravitational force an object exerts.

I thought that the only reason why photons could travel at the speed of light was because they had no mass? Beyond that is physically impossible.

Although i''ve also heard that its been calculated that certain particles have travelled faster than the speed of light whilst orbiting the nucleus of an atom, or something along those lines.

Theres a lot of things we still don''t know, its presumed that we can only account for less than 30% of all the matter in the universe. There''s a real mystery. Anyone heard of mirror matter?

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Edited by - Paul Cunningham on July 10, 2000 2:56:29 AM

Photons have no stationary mass - this is why electrons aren''t slowly losing mass as they get vibrated back and forth between outer shells when u excite them. They actually do gain mass when moving at the speed of light - if you remember how light can be affected by gravity (i.e. those famous solar eclipse experiments where scientists could see a bit behind the sun where they shouldn''t be able to).
And also the fact that light can be sucked into a black hole (thus making it black) which proves taht light has mass when in motion.
It''s due to the theory of relativity that this occurs. As light approaches such a fast speed - it has to gain mass in order to make up for travelling so fast, thus slowing it down a little. The same way a cyclotron seems to get slower particles than it expects when accelerating them. This is because the particle has to slow down - and it either substitutes energy for this (which cannot be created or destroyed) or alternatively gain mass.

Don''t ask me, it wasn''t my theory...it just works.

The forces of gravity on subatomic particles is as of yet.. unkown However, if i had to make a single guess.. i''d bet it has to do with why a galaxy''s sum total of all gravitational force within that galaxy is not enough to hold that much mass together.. yet the galaxy is not expanding, it is held tight.. by gravity.
Gravity has another component to it.. something we''ve missed up until this point.. and i think i''ve spotted a small aspect of that (ok, maybe a large aspect of that). And no.. i won''t tell ;p i''m working on my own lil project that i hope will shed some light on what i''m looking for. It''s gonna be a while before i can do it.. hehe.

As far as mass and protons.. well, according to einstein, to go the speed of light means you have no mass. Since having mass would mean you gain mass as you approach the speed of light.. then it would require infinate times more ammounts of fuel or something to accelerate this mass. It IS possible that gravity somehow holds the key to the power to accelerating a mass infinate times.. since as mass grows, gravitational potential grows, as well. It''s very hard to define.. could we be sucked down to the ground simply because the earth has no gravity as we know it.. but something else?

Oh, and as a funny thought.. hehe. Imagine we''re all traveling on a rotating ball we call the earth at around 300k miles per second or some such. Now, imagine if the earth suddenly stopped rotating.
According to the laws of physics, we''d all still travel in a straight line, out from the last point of force we''d had. That''s right, inertia would sweep us off the ground and toss us until the air.. way into the air since the earth is moving that much Just think.. we might even fly out into space.. just hope you make it there before you die hehe.
it''s also possible we''d all die instantly, as such force upon our body.. even just our leaving the ground.. might cause terminal velocity in the air, and we get squished.. assuming the air doesn''t fly off with us Either way, it''d suck!

J
hoping the planet keeps spinning..

Interesting topic-turn...
Anyway, just thought I''d add some things to this little discussion about the nature of the Universe:

1. Energy cannot be destroyed, and therefore the Universe cannot be cooled down to 0 K as that would require it to loose all energy it contained.

2. If I remember correctly, even black holes have a critical mass, and if they reach this they will explode into a gigantic gas cloud. This would also exclude the possibility of the Universe being contained in a black hole, there are limits to the amount of matter one body can contain before its inner gravitational forces tear it apart.

/Taharez

Why can''t you squish a brick? because there are subatomic forces that keep the particles apart from each other. A black hole is a solid(?) object with so much condensed mass that it''s gravity overcomes those forces, and the particles of matter overlap each other. We can''t live inside such an object, because there is no "inside". The whole universe would have to exist "inside" a single atom of matter, which is clearly impossible for matter as we know it.

What''s outside of the universe? many theories suggest that there *is* no outside of the universe. Think of the earth as a 2d surface stretched over a sphere. We all know that if you pick one direction and keep going, you will eventually end up where you started. There is no "beyond the edge of the earth" because there is no edge of the earth. Just more earth. In the same way, The universe could be a 3 dimensional space stretched around a 4-dimensional sphere, Keep going in one direction and you end up where you started. The universe can''t expand into empty space, because there is no boundary where universe meets non-universe. It simply becomes larger.

Most people like to think of this theory as saying that there is a cube shaped universe that repeats itself like a 3D checkerboard. But does a square of paper fit nicely onto a sphere? What is the 2D *shape* of the surface of the earth? Mapmakers have struggled with this problem for years, because it simply can''t be solved. There is no solution, because the earth is simply not 2D. And- guess what, there is no 3D "shape" of the universe. It''s not a cube, or a sphere. It''s not a parallellogram or a rhomboid, or even a taurus bubble. It''s some kind of multi-dimesional thingy, incomprehensible to our feeble minds. This is also why it would be impossible to find the "center" of the universe, because there is no 3D center, just like there is no "center" on the surface of the earth. If the universe started in a big bang, then that big bang happened right where you''re sitting, and right where I''m sitting. It happened everywhere, because at that moment "everywhere" was the size of a single atom.

The implications about the nature of time (the fourth dimension) are a subject for a whole other post. We *know* there are more than 3 dimensions, supposedly scientists think they have found 3-4 others with the probability that there are many, many more. We may not be able to imagine 8 dimensions of space, but we are really just lumps of carbon and hydrogen, we were only ever designed to have sex. I''m fairly impressed that we''ve gotten as far as we have.

humm.. we weren''t designed to only have sex.. at least, not humans. humans are above and beyond that. what we came from was only designed to have sex ;p

I agree with you mostly.. but there''s no certainty if time is the 4th dimension or not. It could easily be the 5th.. and we''ve overlooked the 4th. But i''ve had a long-time theory to support time being the 4th.. it''s rather odd but aren''t we all? ;p
Now, as a being of 3 dimensions, we''re technically moving through time, right? We always go forward in time.. never back, never stop. So what about a 2d object? if it consists of height and length, does it always move in one direction in relation to depth? What does it do in time then? is it ALWAYS there, no matter what time? in all points in time is it moving from the same single point to the same other point? Should this be true.. then that means we always exist in a 5th dimension, above and beyond time. if a 3d object is always true in the 5d world, then the 5th dimension is the place we need to access in order to teleport. It''s been said there''s a single place, where the whole universe IS the size of an atom.. where all points in the universe are connected, regardless of distance. Once in this plane, we could move without moving (see ender''s game series, the later books for this). You simply move from here to the single point, then from there to ANYWHERE. Two moves without moving to move any distance in an infinately short or long ammount of time. The problem is knowing where you''re going out of our universe to.. and how to select where you want to return to The Ender''s Game series had a very cool way of solving this.
Ok, so assuming this 5th dimension makes the 3rd dimension a single point, it''s feasible we could teleport if we could find a way to get to the 5th dimension. the only problem is.. is time the 4th dimension? It''s impossible to comprehend a 4th dimension for us So let''s try. a single dimension, height, length, width.. all make up the 3 dimensions we know. What if an object is one dimension? it simply has a height of say 1 no length, no width. how would it be able to transcend and interact in the third dimension? by gaining the other two dimensions. how could it go about expanding itself into somewhere it doesn''t exist? well.. good question! Assuming what i assumed earlier.. we move through time like a 2d object moves through the other dimension.. well, it''s possible. Since a 1d object with height might be moving through length.. then it''s feasible it could expand itself lengthwise. It would have to literally grow into the other dimension. It''s length is 0, height is 1. So it expands somehow into the dimension it''s moving through. Then it has to shift and change course. Now that it has length, it has to move through depth. Assuming it can once again expand into depth.. then it''s become a 3d object moving through time, which we assume is the 4th dimension Now that it''s 3d.. it can interact in our world.. whee. However, since it cannot see where it expands to.. it might expand inside of a mountain. oops what then?
perhaps we can''t expand because there''s a mountain where we''re trying to go.. hehe. Heck, think about that 4th dimension.. if we''re moving through something.. then you might as well give up because how do you know there''s something to move to in which you''ll stay alive on? if a living 2d object moved to 3d.. how do you know it''ll still be living? well, that''d suck if it didn''t.. it''d die, and then what good was the attempt? tough to tell.. tough to tell.
Draw a point on a paper.. make it have height then draw some length to it, then width. as you draw them, notice how you move out from that single point of origin. Then try to connect the ends of all those lines in a 3d space by only making a single movement from left to right. You have to rotate the object around. eventually you get a pyramidic shape. Now, if you rotate and draw again, you draw over a line you already made. Does this mean we''re stuck in 3 dimensions? or does it simply mean the 4th dimension somehow overlaps the 1st dimension ina relationship we are incapable of understanding? if it''s true that 4d overlaps 1d.. then you''ll notice that we might be capable of operating in the 3, 6, 9, etc dimensions how sure are you that we don''t live in a 6d world? and time is a component of that world along with other things we''ve yet to understand? oops.. did i just open a can of worms, or what?

J