Yes I know, the following is Impossible and somewhat childish...
but it's what I carried around in my head as a young boy...
I used to believe it... and in some cases still do.
"Anything is possible... and nothing is a fact."
"The best Ideas will come from those who don't know better"
Ideaz: Page 1
Ideaz: Page 2
Ideaz: Pg 3
All the Ideas on this page are list in the menu at the bottom right of this window.
Cick on any topic that interests you to jump straight to that idea.
I'm writing this because I noticed that a lot of the ideas that I used to have...
...I have forgotten.
So before I lose any more... I will try to get them on web/paper.
Some of these ideas may make no sense as yet.. they are more to help me remember.
Hopefully, I will flesh them out one day.
This page is being continually updated.
(Clicking on the Separator Bars will return you to the top of the page)
More newer theories:
The more we evolve... the less we evolve.
Originally, life was simple to create, but it has become more and more complex...
Millions of more or less helpful elements have been added to the core essential elements of life. The less essential the element, the less effect the evolutionary changes it makes are likely to have on the life form. Evolutionary changes to the core elements of life, make much larger changes (for example an evolutionary shift from an animal to a plant, is a much larger mutation/change than from blue eyes to green). However, these are much less likely to succeed or survive. All the additional secondary elements have adapted to support and improve the essential core elements of life, so any core element changes would either have to simultaneously mutate a complete set of new compatible secondary supporting elements, or it’s core element changes would have to continue to be compatible with all it’s previously compatible secondary supporting elements. Both options have an incredibly slim chance of success.
So… a surviving evolutionary shift from plant kingdom to animal kingdom, or any other new life kingdom is extremely unlikely.
More on Evolution:
Could it be that Darwin only worked out part of the story?
Is the outer edge of the universe its coldest?
As is known... the faster something travels, the slower it moves through time.
(for example: if a space ship travels to the nearest star and back again... It may take the travelers 50 yrs... however, for those on earth, the trip may have taken 500yrs.)
Therefore, since the further out from the center of the universe one is the faster one is traveling relative to the center, the slower time travels.
It may well be that the outer edge maximum speed of the universe is limited by either the un-exceedable speed of light, or the zero speed of time. (are these one and the same thing?)
If so... do these limits control the universe...
or does the speed of the expanding universe actually define the speed of light or time?
To see our universe, imagine an expanding bubble
if the outer edge of the universe is at zero speed of time, it is still existing at the same time, as the beginning of the universe (the beginning of time).
If this is the case, then the outer edge is (relative to everything else) incredibly cold... absolute zero in fact. (like the centre of a black hole)
Time: (time bubble) reflection
If the expansion of the universe is accelerating:
then the universe expands equally, the outer expansion accelerates, resulting in 3 possible outcomes:
1. Outer edge accelerates until it reaches the speed of light maximum, (time zero) then stops accelerating. The sudden change sends a shock wave of time from the outer bubble edge back to center of the universe.
2. Outer edge accelerates until it reaches the speed of light max, (time zero) then stops accelerating. Time starts compounding and overlaying at the outer edge.
3. Outer edge accelerates until it reaches the speed of light max (time zero) but doesn't stop. Time starts running backward the further out it goes.
If, however, the expansion of the universe is not accelerating
and if the original big bang sends all matter off in different directions at various speeds…
Some will travel slow (and not so far), some may travel at up towards the speed of light (out towards the edge of the universe) near time zero, and possibly… some may travel even faster than light (out beyond the edge of the universe) where time runs backwards… (the faster it travels… the further out… the further back in time it runs)
This could (maybe) create a mirror image of the universe, outside the universe.
does the speed of universe expansion determine the speed of light and/or time?
The speed of time is relative to everything...
similar in some ways to light:
follow this logic... :
train = 100mph (relative to ground)
bullet from gun = 100mph (relative to gun)
gun in train fired forwards in train = 100 + 100 = 200mph (relative to ground)
gun in train fired backwards in train = 100 - 100 = 0mph (relative to ground)
however, light logic... :
train = 100mph
light = speed of light = sol
light shone forwards in train = 100 + sol? .... no = sol
light shone backwards in train = 100 - sol? .... no = sol
the speed of light = sol (relative to train and ground and distant planet and... everything)
the speed of time = sot (time stays constant... relative to mass being affected by time)
time slippage = the difference in time passed (if a space ship travels to the nearest star and back again... It may take the travelers 50 yrs... however for those on earth, the trip may have taken 500yrs.)
50yrs = 500yrs = time slippage
It would appear though, that time feels normal/constant to everyone, no matter where you are
Falling into a blackhole... forever:?
If we accept that...
the faster you go, the slower time passes, relative to anyone not traveling quickly...
no matter how fast you travel, and no matter how slow your time speed may appear to others, your own time always appears to pass normally...
a black hole has gravity strong enough to bend light back on itself, causing anything falling into it to travel at up to the speed of light.
then as you fall into a black hole, you will speed up towards the speed of light, and time for you will stay normal, while relative to others, time will slow down until it practically stands still…
(Ooops! This next section is where I was thinking backwards. )
In other words... time will stretch.
Watching an object fall into a black hole... it will take a very short time.
Being the actual object falling into a black hole... it may take forever.
Generations(of people) could evolve while falling... in fact (if the speed of light is actually achieved) then from the fallers’ perspective, they aren't falling at all, since the time it takes to fall is stretched towards infinity.
I was pondering this morn... that if there were a universal big bang... the speed from the initial big explosion, traveling at up to the speed of light... could cause infinite time... the endless expanse of time in which we exist.
Although... if the big bang were viewed from outside... the universe’s existence could be over in a split sec...
(thinking around the right way this time… hopefully)
Time slowing down is a confusing concept: this does not mean it lasts longer. It means its rate reduces.
If time slows down, that means that less time passes, not more. So if one travels at or near the speed of light, time will practically stand still; while for others not traveling, time will continue on normally.
There are 3 ways to perceive time… 3 different points of view.
one’s own time always appears normal relative to oneself. (person A on earth) or (person B in a spaceship)
other faster-moving objects have slower (less) time relative to oneself. (person B in spaceship relative to person A)
other slower moving objects have faster (more) time relative to oneself. (person A on earth relative to person B in a spaceship)
Ok, so if traveling fast results in less time passing, then the previous idea of time stretching while falling into a black hole is wrong. In reality, time does the opposite. Time will pass instantly.
This does, however, bring to my attention another possibility involving speed of light travel.
Instant space travel:
If we travel to the edge of the universe and back, at the speed of light, then as far as those on earth are concerned, it will take forever.
(many many hundreds of thousands of years will pass). Earth is unlikely to still exist when we return.
However, from the point of view of those traveling at the speed of light… (assuming we could do the entire trip at that speed) then no time would have passed. Instantaneous travel.
So… not only is this instantaneous space travel… but it is also instantaneous time travel.
This would suggest that if you could somehow travel incredibly quickly without moving far… (maybe spinning in a circle?) then you have a future only time machine.
I am just wondering if there is something wrong with the “if a space ship travels to the nearest star and back again” story that is commonly used to describe what I call time slippage.
It is dependant on one object traveling faster than another.
Eg. spaceship faster than earth.
But since everything is relative… which is moving faster?
Ship or earth? Is the earth not moving rapidly away from the ship?
No point in space is actually stationary, although any point can be seen as stationary if that is where we happen to be.
Is the earth stationary because that is where we live?
So if neither ship or earth can be seen as moving faster than the other, why should time affect them differently?
I have tried to consider ‘distance traveled’ as an alternative to ‘speed’ as time slippage trigger, but am now beginning to consider another alternative.
What if space is held together by a force...an ever-expanding stretched membrane in all directions.
A force called Time.
Anything that travels across/through this membrane at a different rate to the universal constant rate of expansion, encounters the effect I call slippage.
What if there was no BIG BANG?
(Alternative to BIG BANG theory)
In the same way that all material on a bubble attempts to space itself evenly over the surface of the bubble...
...and the land mass of earth attempts to move towards an evenly balanced spacing from an uneven origin, (caused when a large portion of the planet's surface was removed due to the unparalleled collision (with the now present moon), continental drift (or more accurately continental separation/expansion) towards the Pacific). ('drift' suggests random movement, without reason.)
... the mass of all the galaxies in space, spread out to balance the density of the universe.
If the majority of the infinite universe is an empty vacuum stretching on forever...
and the comparatively dense collection of all space mass that makes up the finite universe, (the material that would normally be regarded as originating from the big bang) takes up a tiny portion of the infinite empty vacuum... then it will naturally spread out, attempting to balance the density of the entire infinite space, all mass moving towards the infinite vacuum in an attempt to balance all forces.
Put anything into a vacuum, and it will attempt to expand and fill the vacuum.
That is what the universe is doing... spreading out to attempt to fill the infinite vacuum.
not so much because of a force pushing out from the centre... but because the distant space is a vacuum... and vacuums suck.
And what happens to time in this situation?
If the speed of universal expansion determines the speed of light and/or time, and/or if there is any connection at all, (and there does appear to be some link) then what will happen when/if the universe is somehow not infinite? (due to either a hard limit, an extra-dimensional effect like space curving back and meeting itself, or some other unthought-of reason)
Could there come a time when the universe is totally balanced? In other words... an end to all expansion.
If there is an expansion, time link, and expansion stops... could time stop with it?
And why did space start so unbalanced?
If space started with an infinite vacuum... then where did the mass come from?
Or possibly more importantly, where did the imbalance come from?
On earth, the imbalance was caused by a collision removing a side of the planet...
In an experiment, often adding a foreign substance... causes a chemical imbalance
So... could the universal imbalance of mass to vacuum, be caused by either the sudden appearance of mass in a vacuum... or by the sudden disappearance of all the mass that no longer now exist?
Was the world once much larger than it is now?
Does the curve of each continental plate match the curve of the planet?
I believe the curvature of the plates have a larger radius than the planet itself...
If in fact they do… this would suggest that the plates were formed when the planet was much larger, (before the moon and the Pacific ocean was formed). The plates don't seem to sit comfortably on the planet's surface... often one side/edge of the continental plate sits higher than the other.
eg: in South America the river runs from the west to the east coast, suggesting the west coast is much higher.
My theory is that the surface skin/shell of the Earth had started to set hard, before the planet's collision with a planetoid that has since become our moon. The collision scooped out a large portion of the Earth, (perhaps even as much as a quarter of the original planet's size) leaving behind a huge hole through the outer shell, and well into the more fluid inner material. The outer shell shattered into the many continental plates… the planet became seriously unbalanced, with all the land and water on one side, a huge gaping hole on the other… In an attempt to balance the planet, the Earths water tore through between the South American and Antarctic plates (curving the edges of the previously touching plates) rushing past the southern end of Australia (spinning and tearing it away from India) on it’s way to fill the enormous hole now called the Pacific Ocean. Even with all the Planets waters filling the hole, the Earth was still extremely unbalanced… so the softer inner core reshaped itself to form a smaller globe by moving into the Pacific, (from beneath the surface) slowly raising the ocean’s floor. As it reshapes itself, it carries with it the continental plates (like huge boats on a molten sea) towards the Pacific. This mostly balances the planet, but, a planet with all its continental plates on one side and a huge ocean on the other, still has a desire to spread/balance itself more, so the continental plates will continue to spread themselves as evenly as they can (by moving toward the Pacific Ocean) until the balance is perfect.
If our moon is made of part foreign material and part Earth materials… which parts are which?
Is the surface all from earth?
Did the portion of earth, take with it the water that will be found on the moon?
Balance of moon:
While orbiting in the solar system, passing gravity from their neighbours, kneads the planets like dough. smoothing stirring balancing.
If the moon is partially made up from earth, does it have different densities? mass? (position stable) Could this be why the moon is not rotating? Would the more dense parts be more likely to be attracted towards earth, or be thrown further away? (inertia)
Even more newer theories:
Black Holes: (singularities)
...spinning faster than light
While most objects fall into black holes at up to the speed of light... some material will go into orbit around the black hole.
If black-holes can stop light escaping, then they can stop things from traveling at the speed of light. therefore they can apply enough force to make an object fall towards it at up to (and over) the speed of light.
For an object to stay in orbit, it must travel much faster horizontally than the speed it falls vertically due to gravity.
If the falling speed into a black hole can be up to the speed of light or faster... then the orbit speed must be many times that.
in the same way that a spinning ice-skater speeds up when pulling arms into their body... an orbiting object will speed up as its orbit moves closer to the black hole. At some point, the orbit will dip below the edge of the darkness... the point at which the gravitational force swallows all light. However, the object continues to orbit faster and faster, many times the speed of light. traveling backward in time.
While falling into a black hole, the singularity cannot be seen... however, if looking back out from within the darkness of the black hole, a lot can be seen. All object falling in towards you appear to glow (if their fall lasts long enough to see). Millions of chaotic orbiting objects, blurring faster than can be seen. There may be some similarity to the electrons of an atom.
Is it possible that time isn't the endless locked solid structure that we all know it as?
could it be more like the water of a river or sea?
or like the wind?
or perhaps even something less predictable?
I wonder if time could have eddies or waves in it. If it were made up of elastic bonds.
If the speed of time were not a fixed constant, but was more of an overall average.
what if time was an endless jellified force.
Ripples in Time:
As objects moving through water create a wake, and even stationary objects reflect waves, so too can waves be produced in time. Anything that can influence time, (black holes, hugely dense materials, strong gravitational forces, etc) can leave a wake or trigger waves which flow out over time. The interaction of these waves in 3D creates continual ripples that we ride without knowing. Since we all ride them together... we don't notice we are doing it. Just as in a bath or river, when the water moves, a body or rubber duck, moves as one with the water, unless attached to the bath or bank itself.
and just as movement is seen on top of the ocean as waves... currents exist all the way through the depths. However, although the interaction between water and air could be seen as elastic... the water below the surface is not. It may move, but it does very little compression or expansion in the way I believe time does. Time is similar to the waves on the surface of water, but each wave is expanding/contracting in all directions (in 3 dimensions).
Tacking in Time:
While making comparisons between time and water, one can see that objects (a cork, rubber duck, dead body) will float and move as one with the water, just as we do in time. However objects can be moved relative to the water, and one must assume, similarly we can also be moved in time.
Possible ways to shift in time:
When in a bath, and you create those huge end to end waves that almost wash over the edge and flood the floor and annoy the cleaner (but don't quite), if you let yourself ride the water (let go of the sides), your body will move as one with the water, as we do with time. However, if we grab the side of the bath, we stop moving with the water, and our position in the water shifts. Comparing this to us in time is not straightforward... because our bodies are singularly so large an influence on the water, that we quickly stop the water from moving. In time, however, all bodies are so small and inconsequential, that they all average out and have no overall effect whatsoever on time. The equivalent shift in time to grabbing the edge of the bath, would require an influence from forces not moving through time and/or not influenced by time. Such a force may well not exist.
In the same way that a sailboat can tack across the water using the force of the wind, we may be able to tack through time with the influence of an alternative force other than time.
In the same way that we can swim through water (or use an outboard motor), we may be able to carve our way through time with the influence of a self-created force (self-propulsion).
Leaning into Time:
Time appears to run faster at certain times and slower at others... this is normally assumed to be only a perceived change due to distraction and adrenaline side effects.
for example when busy doing fun stuff time seems to fly, or when in an accident time seems to slow down.
But what if this change was more than just a perception?
What if we have an ability that we don't know about?
When we ride a bike, we turn a corner by leaning, without realising or needing to know it... we just do it.
What if, as we evolved to become the humans that we now are, we developed an extra safety feature to help our survival... one we didn't know we had?
What if a side effect of adrenalin was to have a slight influence on how we move through time?
When we move our hand... we see it move... therefore we learn and understand how to control it. But if we were able to have subtle effects on the way we sit in time, we would probably not see the effects, so we would not understand or even know that we were doing it. Wewouldinfact tend to believe that it wasn't happening, because we couldn't see it.
But what if... to help our survival, we evolved, with a surge of adrenalin, the ability to lean into time? to slow it down temporarily, enough to in some cases avoid an accident.
In the same way that some people have larger noses, fatter fingers, smaller eyes... different people may have variable ways and abilities to lean into time.
Variations in circadian rhythms (the time-keepers of living things) could be examples of individual time leaning.
Fictional Alien Time: (based on a dream)
A fictional culture where each hour has a different length.
Imagining a place (planet, culture, race) where to create a balanced culture... things were given an equal amount of time. for example... one hour for work, one hour for sleep, one hour for play, etc
this worked well for many hundreds of generations..
Then came a period when more productivity was needed, so the powers decided, so as not to disturb the equality of a balanced culture, that they would lengthen of the working hour, and shorten the other hours, without informing the society. All timekeeping devices were modified. And for many more hundreds of generations, the working hour was almost twice the length of the sleep and play hours, without the people's knowledge.
Then came a time of surplus productivity... when the length of the working hour wasn't needed, however, its extension had been forgotten and unknown of by all, so instead of reducing the length of the working hour, they simply worked slower.
And still more ideas come:
Origins of "Embarrassment":
Originally comes from young animals needing to appear normaldespiteinjury, so that they didn't become a target of prey.
Today: Cats wash... and Humans still have a remnant of that survival instinct, eg: when they feel embarrassment after having been seen tripping up.
Concept for Story or Musical or Computer Game:
story from the point of view of small child 4 - 5
everythingseen as happy cheerful new and interesting etc.
butinreality it is a dark situation... maybe a holocaust?
Ring modular system:
future magic rings.
A modular personal assistant:
computer, music player, phone, id card, credit card, torch, camera, radio,exchangable storage disks, anything else... each made in its own modular ring. The rings can be linked together to create a compact tube (easily held in hand or kept in pocket) or used/worn individually on fingers.
can we see black-holes?
when watching the water go down the plug-hole...i realised that circular ripples were radiating out from the edge of the water funnel. Whether this is caused by external ripples bouncing off the edge of the funnel, or generated by the variations in the energy level of the funnel, i can't be sure. but the point is waves were escaping the funnel.
The frequency of the radiated waves seemed to be much lower than those corkscrewing down the funnel.
I believe it is highly likely that black-holes act in a similar way.
It is likely that black-holes emitincrediblylow frequency energy waves (light).
Can we see a black hole by changing/increasing the frequency?
dense gravity center....
spinning creates artificialanti gravity
is it possible to be colder than absolute zero? (negative temperature)
Older nerve structure:
linear (nerve type) system operating inhuman body... remains of early evolutionary reaction triggers for survival in water dwellers? us
Of course... None of this is a Fact.
But some of it ... may just turn out to be ...
Back to Main Page