PDA

View Full Version : Anti-gravity



tommac
2008-Mar-31, 05:06 PM
Are there any theories or suggestions that there is a force that warps space-time in the opposite way that gravity does?

From my amature understanding of things gravity tends to legnthen space and slow time.

Are there any theories where "something" compresses space and speeds time?

How about travel near the speed of light?

I was thinking about this with regards to the expansion metric of the universe.

could the universe be expanding based only on the increase of gravity or antigravity ( as I am describing above )?

a1call
2008-Apr-17, 01:56 AM
Bump.

Very good question.

Another way of asking the same thing would be:

*- What is the opposite of time dilation if any?

Added:
Google seems to know of no such theories, Just Sci-fi:


Time-compression; the opposite of time-dilation. Feels no faster, but looks FTL. Cancels out with the above if you try to combine the two.

Source (http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/trek/6.html)

m1omg
2008-Apr-17, 09:34 AM
Dark energy?

astromark
2008-Apr-17, 10:32 AM
Dark energy?

and thats the problem.. We do not know what it is. 'Dark Energy' = ' Forces Unknown.'

It may not negate gravity. It might just be a stronger force.

Time would just soldier on regardless. It does not care what direction you go.

tommac
2008-Apr-17, 01:55 PM
Time would just soldier on regardless. It does not care what direction you go.

Soldier on relative to what?

Neverfly
2008-Apr-17, 01:58 PM
Soldier on relative to what?

Doesn't matter. Time is like a number. An assignment we gave to a perception. It is not a physical object.

Trocisp
2008-Apr-17, 02:00 PM
Time is just a distance. :p

You can go left, right, forward, backwards, up, down... you're still moving. :p

tommac
2008-Apr-17, 02:06 PM
Time is just a distance. :p

You can go left, right, forward, backwards, up, down... you're still moving. :p

how can you go right? I thought time was 1 dimentional.

Neverfly
2008-Apr-17, 02:10 PM
Time is just a distance. :p

You can go left, right, forward, backwards, up, down... you're still moving. :p

Not really.
A distance describes the physical still.

Time does not. It describes an affect. Nothing more.

John Mendenhall
2008-Apr-17, 02:17 PM
Not really.
A distance describes the physical still.

Time does not. It describes an affect. Nothing more.

I have to look this one up. I think distance between 2 events is x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2, but I forget the units.

Neverfly
2008-Apr-17, 02:20 PM
I have to look this one up. I think distance between 2 events is x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2, but I forget the units.

Time- is a word.
It represents, even mathematically, our percpeption- but it does not represent the physical.

Distance does represent the physical.

Time does not.

astromark
2008-Apr-17, 07:13 PM
Well done, Neverfly. Like a voice across the darkened room...
Time is not a distance,
or a direction,
or anything other than...
Just our perception of;... Relative measurement of interval between occurrences.= TIME.

loglo
2008-Apr-17, 07:21 PM
Well done, Neverfly. Like a voice across the darkened room...
Time is not a distance,
or a direction,
or anything other than...
Just our perception of;... Relative measurement of interval between occurrences.= TIME.

Except that it goes against relativity! What was the point in unifying spacetime if time hasn't a distance measure? (I actually prefer to say that space has a time measure, but that just me.) I guess I'll just go and cross out all the "lightyears" in my text books now. :think:

astromark
2008-Apr-17, 07:27 PM
No.. You are assuming light speed in a year is some thing other than a distance. I ask you...'What is a light year?'

mugaliens
2008-Apr-17, 07:33 PM
Well done, Neverfly. Like a voice across the darkened room...
Time is not a distance,
or a direction,
or anything other than...
Just our perception of;... Relative measurement of interval between occurrences.= TIME.

I disagree. From the photon's perspective, there is no time. Only distance. For all sub-lightspeed events, time and distance are inextricably connected via relativistic equations.

loglo
2008-Apr-17, 07:35 PM
what is a light year?..a distance but since distance is defined by light travel time what is the difference?

tommac
2008-Apr-17, 07:42 PM
Well done, Neverfly. Like a voice across the darkened room...
Time is not a distance,
or a direction,
or anything other than...
Just our perception of;... Relative measurement of interval between occurrences.= TIME.


Ummm ... I disagree.
I understand time to be part of space-time, which is a system of coordinates.
Now maybe you are thinking about a duration of time. Which is similar to distance along the t coordinate system.

Neverfly
2008-Apr-17, 11:24 PM
what is a light year?..a distance but since distance is defined by light travel time what is the difference?

That is just the assignment we gave the distance.

We could have called light years "Starhops" or FarfromEarths" or uh..."parsecs..." or something...:neutral:

That is a representation. It doesn't make time a physical thing or a description of the physical.


Originally Posted by Mugaliens:
I disagree. From the photon's perspective, there is no time. Only distance. For all sub-lightspeed events, time and distance are inextricably connected via relativistic equations.
According to mathematics- Yes. It describes the relationships. But that does not mean that it describes the PHYSICAL relationship of TIME nor that Time is a description of physical representation.
Time is an effect.

Neverfly
2008-Apr-17, 11:25 PM
Ummm ... I disagree.
I understand time to be part of space-time, which is a system of coordinates.
Now maybe you are thinking about a duration of time. Which is similar to distance along the t coordinate system.

It doesn't matter what it looks like when you graph it out.

It's the measurement of effect- not the measurement of physical nature.

Trocisp
2008-Apr-17, 11:39 PM
Time is a measure of distance. how do you know ?

Because two points in time are separated by a specific amount of time in between.

Very simple.

Neverfly
2008-Apr-17, 11:44 PM
Time is a measure of distance. how do you know ?

Because two points in time are separated by a specific amount of time in between.

Very simple.

No.

If you are utterly motionless. If you get off the galaxy and sit unmoving, time will proceed at the same rate (To time, to you, that rate will appear the same, to an outside observer, time will appear to move a bit faster for you).

Time is a word we use to describe the flow of an effect.

trinitree88
2008-Apr-17, 11:51 PM
Time- is a word.
It represents, even mathematically, our percpeption- but it does not represent the physical.

Distance does represent the physical.

Time does not.

Neverfly. I disagree.
The arrow of time moves inexorably towards the increase of entropy in the universe. More disorder is coming. Of that we are certain, otherwise we abandon thermodynamics, and making any sense of the universe is a fruitless excercise. Our hierarchy of conservation laws contains a half dozen that are seen to be consistently inviolate. pete

Neverfly
2008-Apr-18, 12:01 AM
Neverfly. I disagree.
The arrow of time moves inexorably towards the increase of entropy in the universe. More disorder is coming. Of that we are certain, otherwise we abandon thermodynamics, and making any sense of the universe is a fruitless excercise. Our hierarchy of conservation laws contains a half dozen that are seen to be consistently inviolate. pete

I do understand exactly where you are coming from- and I understand the role that time plays in the equations...

But...

What I am saying is that time is a representation of the flow. In the same manner that you just described.
Time is "real" in the sense that the effect is real.
But time itself is not a fancy sci fi type THING nor is it like distance. It plots on a graph like distance- but it is not a distance.

Now, if more SR and GR smarts come in too, and persist in telling me I have misunderstood a fundamental concept of time- I will start to listen. And I will look into it.

But as it stands, my understanding of time is that it is not physical- it is an effect. One we can measure (With our inventions), one that can appear to be dilated- but it is a reference- nothing more.

cosmocrazy
2008-Apr-18, 12:02 AM
Are there any theories or suggestions that there is a force that warps space-time in the opposite way that gravity does?

From my armature understanding of things gravity tends to lengthen space and slow time.

Are there any theories where "something" compresses space and speeds time?

How about travel near the speed of light?

I was thinking about this with regards to the expansion metric of the universe.

could the universe be expanding based only on the increase of gravity or anti gravity ( as I am describing above )?

Going back to the OP.
Based on the theory of gravity being the effect of mass warping space-time using the simple analogy we are all aware of. A heavy ball is placed on a stretched out piece of rubber sheet and another ball in motion is trapped in orbit around it due to the warping of the sheet. If we think of the space-time fabric in this way, as being a flat stretched out sheet and all mass in our universe is warping this sheet as in the rubber sheet analogy. Then how about (in really simplistic terms), mass on the "other side" of this sheet warping it the opposite way? creating an anti gravity effect.
If instead we consider gravity to be a force, then maybe we can define it somehow as, say - the exchange of gravitons between matter/energy? if this is the case then perhaps there are 2 types of "charge" of a graviton + & - ?:think:

Neverfly
2008-Apr-18, 12:07 AM
The rubber sheet analogy is a simplified analogy. But it is not a true representation of the Warping of space.

As long as something has mass, it will have gravity as we know gravity to behave. There is no "other side of the rubber sheet."

Think of a Black Hole. Light cannot escape.
Yet light has no mass- so why is it affected by gravity?
Because gravity has warped the space to such a high degree that light cannot leave even though it is traveling at 300,000 km per second- in a straight line.
The space is so warped that all straight lines lead back inside.

Try that with a rubber sheet.

cosmocrazy
2008-Apr-18, 12:19 AM
The rubber sheet analogy is a simplified analogy. But it is not a true representation of the Warping of space.

As long as something has mass, it will have gravity as we know gravity to behave. There is no "other side of the rubber sheet."

Think of a Black Hole. Light cannot escape.
Yet light has no mass- so why is it affected by gravity?
Because gravity has warped the space to such a high degree that light cannot leave even though it is traveling at 300,000 km per second- in a straight line.
The space is so warped that all straight lines lead back inside.

Try that with a rubber sheet.

I am aware of the rubber sheet analogy to be a simplistic view of the warping of space- time.
The term "gravity" in this theory is the effect of mass on space-time. If you take the simple sheet analogy, a mass large enough warps the sheet so much it could even puncture a hole through in which everything "falls in" (worm hole maybe?). Using the sheet analogy, there are theories about the universe being one of countless membranes, from this point of view there could be "another side". I,m just suggesting simple hypothetical possibilities for the question about anti matter.;)

cosmocrazy
2008-Apr-18, 12:24 AM
I,m just suggesting simple hypothetical possibilities for the question about anti matter.;)

Sorry ment to say Anti Gravity da!

trinitree88
2008-Apr-18, 12:26 AM
I do understand exactly where you are coming from- and I understand the role that time plays in the equations...

But...

What I am saying is that time is a representation of the flow. In the same manner that you just described.
Time is "real" in the sense that the effect is real.
But time itself is not a fancy sci fi type THING nor is it like distance. It plots on a graph like distance- but it is not a distance.

Now, if more SR and GR smarts come in too, and persist in telling me I have misunderstood a fundamental concept of time- I will start to listen. And I will look into it.

But as it stands, my understanding of time is that it is not physical- it is an effect. One we can measure (With our inventions), one that can appear to be dilated- but it is a reference- nothing more.



Neverfly. Semantics. Fair enough. pete

Neverfly
2008-Apr-18, 02:24 AM
Neverfly. Semantics. Fair enough. pete

Trinitree- in this particular case, I have pushed the point because the background wants to turn time into something like a rope- that can be twisted back upon itself- leading to speculations about time travel, time loops, open and closed loops- etc, all of which have no standing in the observational universe.

Sometimes, you can demonstrate these things mathematically, however- that does not mean these things can actually be done anymore than that a white hole can exist. Additional mathematics also usually prevents time loops.

Trocisp
2008-Apr-18, 01:08 PM
No.

If you are utterly motionless. If you get off the galaxy and sit unmoving, time will proceed at the same rate (To time, to you, that rate will appear the same, to an outside observer, time will appear to move a bit faster for you).

Time is a word we use to describe the flow of an effect.I never said that the same time was everywhere.

I simply said that time is a distance.

If I were utterly motionless, I would just be moving a bit faster (distance wise) than the outside observer.

I understand physics, neverfly. I am not a moron. There is no need to talk down to me.


You, my friend, are the one who doesn't understand me. I understand you perfectly well. I just think you're wrong.

tommac
2008-Apr-18, 03:50 PM
It doesn't matter what it looks like when you graph it out.

It's the measurement of effect- not the measurement of physical nature.

Does this agree with the holographic principle?

tommac
2008-Apr-18, 04:03 PM
You say flow ... can time be quantized ... or broken down into a smallest unit?

Does time flow in a similar way that a 3d coordinate system flows? Mathmatecally you I could move along a z axis as easily as I could move along a t axis ... I could take snapshots at each point?

Maybe we are travelling through time ... similarly as we are flying through space. we are perciveing our time as a constant flow ... but it really isnt, we are just used to it.




I do understand exactly where you are coming from- and I understand the role that time plays in the equations...

But...

What I am saying is that time is a representation of the flow. In the same manner that you just described.
Time is "real" in the sense that the effect is real.
But time itself is not a fancy sci fi type THING nor is it like distance. It plots on a graph like distance- but it is not a distance.

Now, if more SR and GR smarts come in too, and persist in telling me I have misunderstood a fundamental concept of time- I will start to listen. And I will look into it.

But as it stands, my understanding of time is that it is not physical- it is an effect. One we can measure (With our inventions), one that can appear to be dilated- but it is a reference- nothing more.

tommac
2008-Apr-18, 04:04 PM
If you were utterly motionless ... time would move at an infinite rate.



No.

If you are utterly motionless. If you get off the galaxy and sit unmoving, time will proceed at the same rate (To time, to you, that rate will appear the same, to an outside observer, time will appear to move a bit faster for you).

Time is a word we use to describe the flow of an effect.

tommac
2008-Apr-18, 04:08 PM
How about the introduction of the exotic "Anti-Mass" particles ... making up a anti-massive object? How about a vacuum ??? Could a vacuum be defined as anti-mass ?


The rubber sheet analogy is a simplified analogy. But it is not a true representation of the Warping of space.

As long as something has mass, it will have gravity as we know gravity to behave. There is no "other side of the rubber sheet."

Think of a Black Hole. Light cannot escape.
Yet light has no mass- so why is it affected by gravity?
Because gravity has warped the space to such a high degree that light cannot leave even though it is traveling at 300,000 km per second- in a straight line.
The space is so warped that all straight lines lead back inside.

Try that with a rubber sheet.

tommac
2008-Apr-18, 04:15 PM
I think I am arguing about symantics here. I believe that time flows but I guess there are two definitions ... one as a point ... a point in time ... and one as a distance or length of time ( flow ). I look at time as a dimention. I understand that if you travel through time or through distance you end up with a positive result. If I go to the store and back I travelled 3 miles not 0 miles. If I go to sleep and wake up I travelled 8 hours. If I went back in time 10,000 years relative to earth ... I would flow x amount of time forwards relative to me ... the last case is where my travel in the t direction relative to the earth is not equal to the travel in the t direction relative to me. t relative to me will always move forward ... similarly to the any particle moving in space. if I throw a boomerang 100 meters and it came back ... relative to it, it went 200 meters ... relative to me it returned to my hand and had a net of 0 distance.



I never said that the same time was everywhere.

I simply said that time is a distance.

If I were utterly motionless, I would just be moving a bit faster (distance wise) than the outside observer.

I understand physics, neverfly. I am not a moron. There is no need to talk down to me.


You, my friend, are the one who doesn't understand me. I understand you perfectly well. I just think you're wrong.

Trocisp
2008-Apr-18, 06:10 PM
I never said time travel was possible. I'm just saying time is a distance.


People seem to keep putting words in my mouth.... Stop.

tommac
2008-Apr-18, 07:02 PM
Do you think space is a distance?

There are space coordinates and time coordinates
delta t ( t0 to t1 ) is a distance the same way that the difference from x1 to x2 is a distance.





I never said time travel was possible. I'm just saying time is a distance.


People seem to keep putting words in my mouth.... Stop.

mugaliens
2008-Apr-18, 07:02 PM
The arrow of time moves inexorably towards the increase of entropy in the universe. More disorder is coming. Of that we are certain, otherwise we abandon thermodynamics, and making any sense of the universe is a fruitless excercise. Our hierarchy of conservation laws contains a half dozen that are seen to be consistently inviolate. pete

Agreed. When the universe first came into existance, it was very ordered - just a bunch of very evenly dispersed pure energy.

Then, it started clumping, and now we have mostly just clumps (stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) with a whole lot of empty nothing between. This is highly disordered, actually, compared to even dispersal, and we're not done yet - things will continue to clump.

Neverfly
2008-Apr-18, 10:14 PM
I never said that the same time was everywhere.

I simply said that time is a distance.

If I were utterly motionless, I would just be moving a bit faster (distance wise) than the outside observer.

I understand physics, neverfly. I am not a moron. There is no need to talk down to me.


You, my friend, are the one who doesn't understand me. I understand you perfectly well. I just think you're wrong.

I have not treated you like a moron.
I have just pointed out that you are treating time like a distance because you percieve it that way. But although time resembles distance in some ways, in many ways it does not. Time is a word that describes.

A distance is measurable as physical. Time is Not Measurable as physical. Time is a perception. Not a physical thing.


You say flow ... can time be quantized ... or broken down into a smallest unit?

Does time flow in a similar way that a 3d coordinate system flows? Mathmatecally you I could move along a z axis as easily as I could move along a t axis ... I could take snapshots at each point?

Maybe we are travelling through time ... similarly as we are flying through space. we are perciveing our time as a constant flow ... but it really isnt, we are just used to it.
Maybe?
Maybe maybe maybe.

Maybe Not.

Plotting points on a graph is only a representation- mathemtical description.
I do not think we are 'traveling through time' like we are through space. Time is a perception. You are not traveling through it at all. You are not traveling in time. You are percieving the passage of time.

And I disagree with the idea that we are jupming point to point. It is a flow. Just because you plot it as points on a graph does not make it a series of points in life.


If you were utterly motionless ... time would move at an infinite rate.
Huh?:confused:


How about the introduction of the exotic "Anti-Mass" particles ... making up a anti-massive object? How about a vacuum ??? Could a vacuum be defined as anti-mass ?
No a vacuum is not anti-mass.

And let's leave the "exotic unobtanium" out of the question.
We may as well talk about introducing exotic food to a diet. Or anti-bacon to eat so you lose weight instead.

Trocisp
2008-Apr-18, 11:09 PM
I have not treated you like a moron.
I have just pointed out that you are treating time like a distance because you percieve it that way. But although time resembles distance in some ways, in many ways it does not. Time is a word that describes.

A distance is measurable as physical. Time is Not Measurable as physical. Time is a perception. Not a physical thing. You're totally right.

Uranium doesn't turn in to lead based on the amount of time that has passed...


Wait....

cosmocrazy
2008-Apr-19, 08:59 AM
If you were utterly motionless ... time would move at an infinite rate.

If you consider time to be a co-ordinate rather than a distance it seems obvious that for our reality to exist we need time for motion and we need "constant motion/evolution" to exist! even if it was possible for an object to stand completely still in space the atoms and sub particles are still in constant motion. If it was possible for zero motion/evolution to happen then i would have thought time would be zero also. If we use the capture of a photo or pause a video, as the analogy for our universe at this point then time would freeze.:think: No motion in any co-ordinate?

eburacum45
2008-Apr-19, 09:36 AM
Time is what stops everything happening at once. Space (and distance) is what stops everything happening in the same place. They are obviously different, but in some ways seem to resemble each other.
Apart from that we can't define either phenomenon fully. I think that some people on this board might say that any attempt to do so is 'magical thinking'. That doesn't mean that they aren't useful concepts; space and time are or course fundamental But because they are fundamental you can't go any further in defining them- they just are.

cosmocrazy
2008-Apr-19, 12:06 PM
Time is what stops everything happening at once. Space (and distance) is what stops everything happening in the same place. They are obviously different, but in some ways seem to resemble each other.
Apart from that we can't define either phenomenon fully. I think that some people on this board might say that any attempt to do so is 'magical thinking'. That doesn't mean that they aren't useful concepts; space and time are or course fundamental But because they are fundamental you can't go any further in defining them- they just are.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with this! :)

tommac
2008-Apr-20, 02:36 AM
If you consider time to be a co-ordinate rather than a distance it seems obvious that for our reality to exist we need time for motion and we need "constant motion/evolution" to exist! even if it was possible for an object to stand completely still in space the atoms and sub particles are still in constant motion. If it was possible for zero motion/evolution to happen then i would have thought time would be zero also. If we use the capture of a photo or pause a video, as the analogy for our universe at this point then time would freeze.:think: No motion in any co-ordinate?
utterly motionless I thought would mean that you were also under no gravitational force either .... since everything is moving relative to you and you have no gravity and no energy ... then you would be at 0 Kelvin ???

hmmm not really sure I think time becomes expanded? Not sure though ... time could stop ... or be infinite .. not sure

cosmocrazy
2008-Apr-20, 09:47 AM
:think:
utterly motionless I thought would mean that you were also under no gravitational force either .... since everything is moving relative to you and you have no gravity and no energy ... then you would be at 0 Kelvin ???

hmmm not really sure I think time becomes expanded? Not sure though ... time could stop ... or be infinite .. not sure

I know its a mind boggling one! absolute zero seems like a point matter/energy will no longer exist at least in the form we know! but if we consider this then surely "time" is the motion of change, therefore nothing to move or change no time? :think:

astromark
2008-Apr-21, 05:15 AM
I do not think thats right. From the point of view of any outsider time is absolutely relentless and unstoppable. It moves forward always and, to disagree with 'Nevefly' on this and his explanation of time is just a demonstration of you misunderstanding. The expanding rubber sheet is not the answer to all understanding. Absolute motionlessness and absolute zero temperature does not stop time. Nothing can stop time. There will never be nothing so time can never stop, or is that end...

Neverfly
2008-Apr-21, 05:25 AM
I do not think thats right. From the point of view of any outsider time is absolutely relentless and unstoppable. It moves forward always and, to disagree with 'Nevefly' on this and his explanation of time is just a demonstration of you misunderstanding. The expanding rubber sheet is not the answer to all understanding. Absolute motionlessness and absolute zero temperature does not stop time. Nothing can stop time. There will never be nothing so time can never stop, or is that end...

I must add to this that although Occams Ghost is correct in pointing out that time and space are inter-related (If you 'left the universe' somehow- would there be time? I think No...) they also follow different paths. One is not necessarily the other.

astromark
2008-Apr-21, 05:48 AM
And I concur with this... as time would not have existed before the universe did. But as you have opened this idea... We can not leave this universe, as we are part of it. where we go so does it. LOL:)

Neverfly
2008-Apr-21, 05:55 AM
And I concur with this... as time would not have existed before the universe did. But as you have opened this idea... We can not leave this universe, as we are part of it. where we go so does it. LOL:)

<chuckle> Now we are REALLY getting into strange grounds:p

cosmocrazy
2008-Apr-21, 07:56 PM
I do not think thats right. From the point of view of any outsider time is absolutely relentless and unstoppable. It moves forward always and, to disagree with 'Nevefly' on this and his explanation of time is just a demonstration of you misunderstanding. The expanding rubber sheet is not the answer to all understanding. Absolute motionlessness and absolute zero temperature does not stop time. Nothing can stop time. There will never be nothing so time can never stop, or is that end...

Who's disagreeing? No one said the rubber sheet analogy was the answer to anything! we cannot imagine space-time in our minds so its just a simple analogy for us to use to try and picture things thats all!
Have you proven time cannot be stopped? have you proven there cannot be nothing? have you proven any of the statements you make? If so then i apologize for suggesting any other theory or possibility!:cry:

Neverfly
2008-Apr-21, 08:09 PM
Who's disagreeing? No one said the rubber sheet analogy was the answer to anything! we cannot imagine space-time in our minds so its just a simple analogy for us to use to try and picture things thats all!
Have you proven time cannot be stopped? have you proven there cannot be nothing? have you proven any of the statements you make? If so then i apologize for suggesting any other theory or possibility!:cry:

Taking a moment outside the box, we all have our own distinct personalities and ways of expressing ourselves.
Astromark seems to like to stay concise and to the point. He treats everything as fact- even in theory.
I cannot always fault this though- because most of us understand what he is saying. But to someone not used to thinking outside the box- I admit- Astromark can sound a bit strange sometimes.

We cannot "prove" anything you just said. But we can make observations and use our existing knowledge to make predictions (GR and SR for example) that so far, accurately describe our observations.

Cosmocrazy, earlier you also said that the Rubber sheet was an analogy- so we know now that you see it for what it is and that it has limited application.

cosmocrazy
2008-Apr-21, 08:41 PM
Taking a moment outside the box, we all have our own distinct personalities and ways of expressing ourselves.
Astromark seems to like to stay concise and to the point. He treats everything as fact- even in theory.
I cannot always fault this though- because most of us understand what he is saying. But to someone not used to thinking outside the box- I admit- Astromark can sound a bit strange sometimes.

Yes thanks I see your point! i guess i am the opposite and see everything as a possibility until proven otherwise, no matter how weird or un-probable it might seem!:lol: I do like to learn good science though and when theories are shown to be incorrect or unlikely then thats good progress too. I do apologize:)