I'm curious, what's the status on the Bryce backroom? what is the url? could you make a link for it in the Bryce forum banner?? could I ask any more questions? what is the meaning of life?....hehe.... thx, big_hoovie

I'm putting up the new page in the Bryce Backroom that will be the begining of housing all the monthly challenge entries and winners. The basices will be up by tommorrow for voting purposes. Look at the pics, come back here in the forum to vote. Yup, it will be linked in the forum banner. Yes. 42. AgentSmith

Most of us know that 42 is the meaning of life, but what is the question?

how many times do i have to say i love you? or 6x7.

42 is the answer. "What is the meaning of life the universe and everything ? " IS the question. - Alas poor Douglas, I read him well. Oh you mean THE question . . . um er, I dunno.

Ah, Douglas we knew him well... Horrible thing, that he had to pass away.

Aw, now I'm getting misty. "and all the pot of tulips thought was "Oh no, not again." Sniff. So yeah, I've been meaning to ask about this elusive backroom and how to get there. I guess the paint isn't dry yet.

dont the mice have somthing to do with the answer? i mean question.

zappazorn: Yes, but we try not to let too many people know that. so don't tell anybody o.k.?

I bet the dolphins know :-)

I typed this great essay on the meaning of life this morning (9:35 in the Netherlands), but when I clicked on 'Post Reply' I came in the frontpage of the forums and I discovered that my deeply philosophical (or just vague, you decide for yourself) essay was gone. So now that all the hairs I pulled out this morning are beginning to grow back I'll give it a second try: We live in a 4-dimensional universe. 3 of these dimensions are spatial dimensions and the other dimension is a temporal dimension. And here's the important part: since time only has one dimension, it is both an infinitley long 'line' and an infinitely small point. But life starts at a certain point in time and ends at another point. But between the beginning and the end of one life other lifes can start and end too. When I combined the above facts I came to this conclusion: In order to experience time you have to be alife live. If you would not be alife you would not be sentient and you would not be able to experience the beginnings and ends of other lifes and therefore we would not be able to orientate ourselves in temporal dimension. So the meaning of life is 'to experience time' and at the same time you have ti experience time to know that you are alife. And with that we can also say what the meaning of te universe is: the meaning of the universe is for life to exist in. And if life wouldn't exist in the universe that there would not be anything to experience the movement of the matter/energy in the universe and thus there would be no way to even know that there in matter/energy in the universe. If nothing would know of the existence of matter/energy nothing would interfere with it and matter/energy would just be caught in an infinite time loop and that would render time obsolete. And because everything tends to absolute order, time would not exist at all and would never start existing. And without time our universe would be instable and unable to exist (according to the M-theory). So the universe needs life to exist and life needs the universe to exist.

Look! You are only describing LINEAR TIME, what about NON-linear time? Ie: the perception of time experienced as a whole in every part of the time/space continuum..... We simply fail to understand that time has no begining and no end. And trying to understand that is a recipe for insanity. Time did not begin with the Big Bang! It merely continued. As for the 'meaning of life': to experience time is to create one's own reality and our 'reality' is only our limited way of dealing with a universe that is simply too big for us to contemplate.

OMG!!! what monster have I created in this thread!?!

We all get misty eyed at his passing. I plan on adding the leather editions to my library just like JRR. While there is a lesser following than Lord of the Rings, Adams is right there with Tolkein as far as entertainment and getting lost in a story.

cshaftoe: What's the difference between linear and non-linear when you have temperal dimension that can be seen as infinitely small? I think there is no difference! Our interpretation of time can be linear or non-linear, but time is both linear and non-linear at the same time. For instance: infinity^2=infinity And infinity-2=infinity. There's just no difference. And then there is still this question: How do you define time? In my opinion there are 2 ways to define time: 1. Time began at the point where temperal dimensions where able to exist and ends in infinity. 2. Time begins at the point where something is able to experience it's existance and ends when there's nothing to prevent it from becoming a loop. When time forms a perfect loop (wich means that every time the loop 'restarts everything happens exactly the same as the timebefore that. So if someone's trapped in a temperal loop and the person is able to experience that he/she is in that loop, than the loop is not perfect, because the person trapped in the loop might act different when the loop restarts.)it's no longer of any 'use'. At that point time has become a negligible factor and therefor it can be considered non-existend. In both cases a 'Big-bang' has nothing to do with the existence of time as a whole.

big hoovie: It's Alive! Alive, I tell you! Zigster: the dolphins know more than they're telling, as do the hubahuba trees. Rayraz: on dimensions. actually 11 or more. some people are calling for 20 or more. You need to read yhe philosophy of Rene DeCarte regarding your existance (yeah same guy who came up with cartesian coordinates.) on refuting yer time philosophy.no offense, but... 1) Time does not end in infinity. At some point the energy disapates and time stops.(but what happens then? - ha ha ha) 2) Time although relative to the observer does not exist at the observer's pleasure. there is something to prevent time from becoming a loop. Inertia. re "in both cases": wrong. the gravimetric association with time is well established. ... and how does all of this relate to Bryce, Zaphred Breeblebrox or the back room?

Um....mebe it's an idea for some abstract art work??

bikermouse: You say that all energy disapates. I've heard about a theory that black holes will eventually 'eat' all the matter inside their gravitational field. As a result of that all matter would be in a state of singularity. But all these black holes still attract each other and de bigger black holes will 'fuse' with the smaller ones. When all black holes have merged all the matter/energy in the universe will be caught in that singularity. And time is still present in a singularity. But because there's nothing more 'to do' for the singularity time will be of no use and there would actually be a loop. Until the next Big-Bang and then everything starts all over again. According to this theory this state of 'Absolute singularity' is reached before all energy is disapated. So the real question is actually: Does energy still disapate when it's in a state of singularity?

Attached Link: http://uk.geocities.com/bryster3d

Energy does not dissapate....it merely changes form, thus there is and always will be the same amount of enrgy in the universe. It's how it's perceived that's important. As for dimensions....current theory allows for an infinite number, you need the Einstein/Heisenburg bridge to sort that one out! (By the way...current theory actually states that time-travel is NOT forbidden unlike e=mc2 which seems to state that faster-than-light travel IS forbidden) RayRaz...the diff between linear/non-linear time is how it's perceived/experienced....which brings us back to the reality question. In MY reality I am living in a Nightmare from which I will never awaken. And nothing you can say will convince me otherwise. Bikermouse: Gravimetric association with time is hokum! Unless of course you believe in the actuality of the FABRIC Of SPACE. Where the presence of say a planet creates a 'dent' in the fabric of space. Any way, I'm bored now. I'm going back to dealing with cold-fusion and fusion reactors.....

cshaftoe: just a note to your comment about e=mc2 - your statement was almost correct. what it bassicaly means, is that an object at a velocity slower than the speed of light cannot accelerate to the speed of light, but, keep in mind that this rule is meaningless to anything that is ALREADY moving at or above the speed of light.

Big Hoovie: I would be interested to hear you define which objects are Already at or above the speed of light.

Adams would be pleased...lol.

Attached Link: http://deoxy.org/h_kaku1.htm

bu-be: The dolphins are nothing if not polite. Rayraz et al: "Absolute singularty" - doesn't this imply the absense of time ? cshaftoe: Not hokum ... in the presence of a large gravitional mass space is indeed curved. sorry about the nightmare thing. . . hey hear about the new interstellar freeway going up? FYI: Rather than get into an endless discussion about something whose dimension exceeds most peoples grasp, I refer you to the master on the subject. He is to string theory what Kozaburo is to Poser hair mapping. He is Michio Kaku, SuperString Theorist and a real nice guy. (see the attached link and enjoy.) Agent Smith: I'm sure he's smiling down at us as I type.

cshaftoe: for one, particles of light are at the speed of light, are they not??

Attached Link: http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/Physics/Original/p00351d.html

ok, for a more educated answer, follow the link

big hoovie: the only problem with your last statement is the word "particle". I believe you meant "photon" ? The instantaneous accleration of a particle to and above the speed of light IS one of many "Holy Grail"s in physics. Although it is sought after by use of devices such as a particle accelerator like the one at Lawrence-Livermore, it is apparent that it is nearly impossable to achieve, and if possable would require vast amounts of energy to propigate a wave derived from such particles.

Big Hoovie: I was assuming that you wouldn't make such an obvious distinction.

well, I never said I was an astrophysicist, did I?

Big Hoovie: I might be an astrophysicist, but that doesn't help one deal with those who consider reality on such an basic level.....I think I would be better off as a philosopher.

cshaftoe: perhaps I'm tired, or maybe I'm just plain dumb, but I'm not sure what you mean by "consider reality on a basic level" could you explain? I've had a very long couple of days, and my brain is spent.

Big Hoovie: YOU've had a long couple of days? You should have had mine.....25th wedding anniversery party on Sat night, open-house sunday for my birthday, house guests I've lost count of and a Bryce challenge to post before the deadline.....My son's fiancee has just given birth to my 3rd grandchild (boy - 8lb 12oz - both doing well thankyou) and I have to drive to London from Wales on Tuesday...I am completely knackered. Reality on a basic level....consider this: To appreciate your place in the universe you must first realise just how big the universe is...that is to say, you must really comprehend what it means to live in a universe that has no end and had no beginning; a universe that stretches to infinity, eternally and forever. In a reality that is full of beginnings and endings something as eternal and infinite as the universe stands as an anacronism and as such can drive a person to the point of insanity. This is what I mean by 'a basic level'. Our reality will always be flawed until we become capable of making the (quantum) leap that will enable us to look beyond the finite and see the universe as it really is. And as for you being plain dumb....not a chance. Anyone who can converse at this level has more than just a modicom of intelligence.

ah. i see now. and thanks for at least calling me intelligent enough to keep up with this conversation(barely). I do normally consider myself fairly intelligent, but since my son has been born, my life has been more hectic than ever. (my daughter is 2, and my son is 3 months, and my wife and I are 22...hehe) I don't, unfortunatly, have the time, nor luxury of viewing the universe as it is, and as such, my "universe" is localized. everything I need is in the room next to me, and I couldn't ask for much more(maybe faster render times in Bryce, but, hey...we can't have everything we want)

"welcome back my friends to the..." thread "...that never ends" The universe is finite. We are all just ao small we think of it as infinite.

Bikermouse: So how long have you been an Emerson, Lake & Palmer fan?

this thread is infinite... or at least, it seems that way. I would have to say this is the longest thread I've seen to date, barring challenge voting threads.

cshaftoe: 1971? I think. a college buddy introduced me to them somethime around them. I like old Pink Floyd even better.

oops sometime around then

Time is not infinite ... its never there when i need it :-P

in the presence of a large gravitaional mass, time slows down. so the next time you need time all you gotta do is get near a black hole ... you know there was this tribe that measured time by the length of a persons shadow. the tall people would get to meetings early and the short ones would get there late. One particularly obtuse yet tall tribesman was told by another tribesman, "you know, you're a waste of height." (ok, it's a lame joke, ok.)

Getting back to our perception of reality.....groan....How many of us have had the experience of time flying when we're particularly busy and yet dragging its heels when we have nothing to do?

Well, given a plane that never breaks down nor runs out of fuel, you could keep flying west at mach 2. But then you'd miss walking about and interacting with people.