Jump to content
Curious Cosmos
Sign in to follow this  
RainmanTime

For Reactor & Einstein

Recommended Posts

Darby

 

Errr...you're sure about that? I mean the specific laws of electromagnetics aside, if you have one force directed at 90 degress relative to another force you really see the forces subtracting? I see a new vector, derived by a cross product of the two vectors, that is at some angle "theta" between the two component forces, that's, maybe, a function of the sin of the angle between the two forces, but....ummm...

 

 

Not 90 degrees. The drawing represents how the rules of operation work for a current carrying wire in a uniform magnetic field. The way it was taught to me is that parallel lines of force in the same direction will repel each other, thus adding. While opposing lines of force will attract thus canceling. So you have forces adding on one side and subtracting on the other side. The orthogonal direction of motion is the result of the imbalance in force across the wire.

 

But I do see a problem here. And I've seen it in discussions with RMT. I'm taking it for granted that a force is totally immune from influence by another force acting in an orthogonal direction. To me that is a mathematical given. Mainly because forces acting along lines are one dimensional. So my question to you is, are we one the same page concerning this discussion on forces?

 

Perhaps vector algebra can supply an answer here? I dunno. Just a guess, but what the hell. Math in physics is bunk, thus sayeth the Lord. Yes?

 

 

Weren't you on the other side of the fence just last week? Now if I could just get RMT to jump off the sinking calculus boat....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein,

 

In reply to:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question we are discussing here is whether math works or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As a descriptive tool, yes. As a predictive tool, no. A very ambiguous question.

 

 

Once again, it is the person behind the name you have chosen for yourself here that clearly shows your fatuous beliefs for what they are. For embodied within the mathematics of relativity is (and was) the prediction that light waves are bent by gravity. That was a prediction that Einstein's math held out for many years before it could be verified. And verified it was by Arthur Eddington in 1919.

 

Will you ever awaken from the your slumber of arrogance? I wouldn't bet on it.

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you don't you understand? 2+2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2!

 

I remember an elec eng friend of mine just going nuclear over that bit of gibberish. It was however being spouted by a PhD candidate in pure mathematics... Not a garden shed megalomaniac tuned to station KSCZ - all schizophrenia all the time.

 

Mathematics doesn't work to predict. Right. Let's disprove that one using the same example.

 

2 + 2 =?

 

oh look a prediction. whatever.

 

Yet another assertion filled tract that isn't accurate enough to be wrong. RMT, how you have the patience for this- just don't know, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you don't you understand? 2+2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2!

 

 

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That one goes in my bag of sarcasm that I keep beside me at all times. :D

 

RMT, how you have the patience for this- just don't know, man.

 

 

It is because gems like yours above, and the recent one from Darby, keeps me going. At first, I am earnest in wishing to help crackpots overcome their ignorance. When they refuse, and accuse me of all sorts of crimes against humanity, this turns into something really entertaining.

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't forget to explain to Einstein that one of his favorite experimental topics, namely magnetism, is accurately predicted via the cross product.

 

 

I've explained enough.

 

Now it is Einstein's turn to answer my questions. So far, he ignored nearly all of my points, which isn't being very respectful. So I really see no reason to raise even more points which will, again, be ignored.

 

Sorry. But I'm not going to continue talking to brick wall. And if the guy prefers going in circles and bickering over an honest discussion, he is all yours :)

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspected it. But in this form it is useless. Where is the visualization? Could you make or engineer a magnetic propulsion engine from just this equation?

 

 

The really interesting question is: Can you design ANY engine without such equations? Well... perhaps a simple engine for a simple machine can be designed with intuition alone. But if you wish to design something really interesting, such as a Boeing 747 aircraft, these equations become indispensible.

 

And you still call them "useless"? Why? Can you do better than that? Does your theory explains how to build bridges, automobiles, aircrafts and computers?

 

I'm sorry, but if usefulness is the yardstick you choose to decide between competing theories, than you're at a clear disadvantage. Your theory may be the most beautiful and intuitive thing in the world, but the bottom line is that it doesn't work. You may be able to use to for building a simple technological toy (as you already did) but that's where your theory reaches its limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein2087

 

Now it is Einstein's turn to answer my questions. So far, he ignored nearly all of my points, which isn't being very respectful. So I really see no reason to raise even more points which will, again, be ignored.

 

 

 

It's not that I'm ignoring you. I spend 11 hours a day with my commute and at work. I only get a little more than an hour to spend posting. So lets get down to answering some of your points.

 

Math is only a tool. I agree. But why do you think it isn't a good tool?

 

 

Because I think it is a crutch that some people give way too much reliance on. I manage to solve lots of problems that math could be used for with just the art of visualization.

 

You have this theory. Fair enough. More time dimensions, two lorentz forces, and a return to newtonian physics. How does this jive with your claim that "no math is needed"? And what is the alternative framework you are suggesting?

 

 

The alternative frame work is visualization taught to me by Einstein himself through his writings. It worked very well for him. Here is a small video I made of something I called Sticky Space at the time I was investigating it.

 

Sticky Space

 

Personally I think it is an excellent engineering tool to just figure out what's going on. But no one had a theory as to what was going on.

 

 

 

So you say math isn't a good predictive tool? Then how come scientists and engineers are using it for centuries to get the right result?

 

A lot of the time math gets the credit for data that was actually gathered by trial and error. If math was a good predictive tool, then there would be no need for any further experimentation at all.

 

The question is: What's hidden behind the mask?

 

I'd love to know the answer to that. Especially in the case of the more abstract math of quantum physics. All those Lagrangians and Feyman Diagrams and Gauge Symmetries... Bah! There gotta be some underlying simple truth behind it all. Something we've missed.

 

 

 

Yes, and the key I believe is: What is time?

 

Well I think I've gotten all your points. If I missed any, just let me know. Just don't expect an immediate reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternative frame work is visualization taught to me by Einstein himself through his writings. It worked very well for him.

 

 

This is only a partial truth. Yes, it is true that the real Einstein began with visualization...such as his famous discussions of how he visualized what it would be like to ride on a light beam. But it is disingenuous to suggest that this was all he needed to solve the riddle of Relativity. In point of fact, he needed math. Yes, needed. While Einstein had always excelled in math, including integral and differential calculus, he realized as he began to form his theory of Relativity that he had to "go back to school" and learn differential geometry... an area of math that he struggled with (as do I and many others). So once again, your statement above is only a partial truth, and the full truth defies your own beliefs about how far you can get with revolutionary theories without math.

 

Here is a small video I made of something I called Sticky Space at the time I was investigating it.

 

Sticky Space

 

Personally I think it is an excellent engineering tool to just figure out what's going on. But no one had a theory as to what was going on.

 

 

Yep. That is the video, alright. And this is the one that I mentioned to you that you needed instrumentation for position and rate, and the one that made me go searching for the basics of the Lorentz Force. I also mentioned that it looked very much like you were matching the motion of your hand to the natural frequency of the pendulum that the metal disc formed. If you were matching your hand to this natural frequency, then space is NOT "sticky" but rather it is the Lorentz Force which depends upon position and rate. And there is even evidence at the end of your video that shows you are matching the pendulum's natural frequency...because at the very end the apparent "stickyness" breaks the pattern. Pay attention to the very end of the video when your hand stops and you will see that the pendulum disc continues to move away just as the video ended. (Did you purposefully cut off the video to try and hide this asymmetry?) This was the evidence that lead me to believe it was nothing more than the Lorentz Force causing a current through the disc based on the velocity with which your hand and the magnet approached it.

 

And for you to think it is an excellent engineering tool is hogwash. Over and over I told you that you need instrumentation. This video is the poster child proof for that. Because if you had instrumented data that showed the position of your hand magnet and its velocity profile as you move it back and forth, you could actually use that data along with the strength of the magnet's field, and plug them into the Lorentz Force equation and that would have allowed you to validate that what you were seeing was, in fact, the Lorentz Force... because the Lorentz Force equations actually DO predict what you would observe for certain, specific velocities, positions, and magnetic strength.

 

But I am sure you don't think so. And that it too bad, because you are of above average intelligence. It is only your disdain for mathematics and learning the various mathematical models of physics that holds you back. I realize you are really afraid of math because it is daunting to you...and your arrogance and attitude is just your way to hide your uneasiness.

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that I'm ignoring you. I spend 11 hours a day with my commute and at work. I only get a little more than an hour to spend posting.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

I still wonder, though, why did you spend all of your limited time replying to the people who've been bickering and teasing you for months, rather than have a discussion with the guy who's actually interested to listen what you have to say.

 

But I suppose it's your choice. I really can't hold that against you, because it isn't my business. So let us go on with the discussion, shall we?

 

 

 

The alternative frame work is visualization taught to me by Einstein himself through his writings. It worked very well for him.

 

 

Wait a minute... What do you mean by "it worked very well for him"?

 

First of all, Einstein relied heavily on mathematics. And you know what? He hated it! He actually had to ask his colleagues for help in converting his raw ideas of general relativity into a working mathematical model.

 

Also, most of Einstein's "visualizations" were anything but intuitive. Indeed, the reason he is regarded as such a genius, is that he was able to go beyond "common sense" and reach the correct conclusions even when they seem "absurd".

 

Do you know what Einstein's two postulates of relativity are? One - that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. And Two - that the speed of light is constant, no matter how fast the source is moving.

 

The first postulate may be common-sensical, but the second certainly isn't. If I run away from you at 99% the speed-of-light and shine a flashlight at you, the light still reaches you at the speed of light. Does that sounds common sensical to you? Of-course not! It's outright absurd! Yet Einstein chose it as one of the cornerstones of relativity, and you know why? Because it was a direct logical consequence of Maxwell's Equations.

 

See, when Einstein had to choose between common sense and mathematics, he chose mathematics. All his visualizations came LATER. His wonderful thought experiments already started from the assumption that Maxwell's Equations do work.

 

And guess what? Einstein was right. Even though his theory was based on zero experimental data (Einstein wasn't aware of the Michaelson-Morely Experiment), he correctly predicted the effects of time dilation. He correctly deduced E=mc², which is the principle underlying the atomic bomb and nuclear powerplants. Einstein's work is an excellent demonstration of the power of mathematics.

 

 

 

A lot of the time math gets the credit for data that was actually gathered by trial and error. If math was a good predictive tool, then there would be no need for any further experimentation at all.

 

 

Well... Yes and no.

 

Yes, sometimes trial and error is needed in order to find what the correct mathematical model is. But once you have your model, it can be used for a vast array of different situations.

 

For example, take Schordinger's equation. The equation itself easily fits on a T-shirt, yet you can use it to predict the outcome of ANY chemical reaction. You can use it to calculate the energy levels of helium, or the boiling point of water, or the number of calories in a ounce of sugar. One simple equation rules all of chemistry. That is what I mean, when I'm saying "math works".

 

Now, if you look at Schrodinger's equation closely, you'll see that it is really nothing more than an abstract construct. Schrodinger himself admitted that much. It's nothing more than a recepie to get the correct results. But what a recepie! It's like having a cookbook which can tell you how to make every dreamable dish you can think of.

 

 

 

Yes, and the key I believe is: What is time?

 

 

Well, maybe the key is the answer to that question. Do you have an answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the time math gets the credit for data that was actually gathered by trial and error. If math was a good predictive tool, then there would be no need for any further experimentation at all.

 

 

 

I suppose that the best way for you to test your theory vs. Ray's theory is this:

 

Each of you design and build an airplane.

 

Ray will use his knowledge of the science of aeronautical engineering including all the applied "bunk" maths to aid in the design and construction.

 

You, on the otherhand, design and build your aircraft without the benefit of any math at all. You do it by trial and error.

 

Once the two aircraft are built you each become the test pilot for your aircraft. Take your plane out for a test flight. Put the craft through the paces - roll rate and recovery, spin and recovery, stall and recovery. This should be a good test of whether the math is bunk or whether "trial and error sans math" engineering is the way to properly design aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the law of ancient Babylon requiring all doctors to take their own cures first, in public, before administering them to others. Nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to continue to pull on the string of your "Sticky Space" video that you constantly put in front of people. Not only is there no instrumentation, but you have attempted to use this ONE video (which even has a flavor of you trying to pull the wool over people's eyes) to come to a conclusion that "space is acting strange and sticky".

 

This is some of the worst scientific method one would ever attempt to apply: From a SINGLE test without quantified data, you come to a highly strange conclusion about reality. Don't you think at least several other tests with varying parameters are in order?

 

I mentioned this to you back when you first posted this, but I admit I did not push you as much as I did for the instrumentation. I am sure you realize that this one video represents a single, time-orientated state vector (position, velocity, acceleration) of your hand and the magnet it holds interacting with the pendulum disc. Why did you choose not to make any more videos that have different position, velocity, acceleration profiles of your hand? I am sure you know that science does not come to conclusions about reality with only one set of data for the independent variables in a problem!

 

To be more specific: This one video shows an approximate sine wave motion of your hand forward and back, in what seems like an attempt to maintain a constant back-and-forth rate (that natural frequency of the pendulum I mentioned). Wouldn't it be a good thing to make at least 2 or three more videos with different position profiles for your hand to follow? Perhaps a triangle wave, for instance? Or even better, a "step function" where you move your hand rapidly to a point in space very close to the pendulum disc, and then hold your hand there and watch the time response of the disc. Indeed, in quantifying the dynamics of any physical body (we call it "the plant") the step response is a classical way to figure out what might be going on.

 

But the point is... even if you are going to infer something as wild as "sticky space" from such non-instrumented experiements, it is very definitely "poor science" to try and do it with only one experimental data point.

 

Agreed?

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein2087

 

I still wonder, though, why did you spend all of your limited time replying to the people who've been bickering and teasing you for months, rather than have a discussion with the guy who's actually interested to listen what you have to say.

 

 

You know that makes sense. I totally agree with you on this.

 

See, when Einstein had to choose between common sense and mathematics, he chose mathematics. All his visualizations came LATER. His wonderful thought experiments already started from the assumption that Maxwell's Equations do work.

 

 

I would have to disagree with you on that. Mainly because I would have to say the math comes from visualizations. Not the other way around. Only because that's the way I do it. My brain wasn't born with math built in. But apparently for me visualization of a problem is a very natural way to attack a problem.

 

And guess what? Einstein was right. Even though his theory was based on zero experimental data (Einstein wasn't aware of the Michaelson-Morely Experiment), he correctly predicted the effects of time dilation. He correctly deduced E=mc², which is the principle underlying the atomic bomb and nuclear powerplants. Einstein's work is an excellent demonstration of the power of mathematics.

 

 

I think that the idea that he used math to figure out these things out is promulgated fiction. He used math to describe his visualizations. At least that is what he taught me through his writings. Of course you have to realize that I have a specific goal in mind. I want to invent an antigravity engine. Take a look around. Don't see anyone figuring that out. Obviously to me, I'm going to have to choose some unorthodox methods to acquire that knowledge. So I believe the answers are right in front of us in basic experimental observations. Alternate interpretations of known and accepted solutions seems to be a very interesting avenue to explore for me.

 

Yes, and the key I believe is: What is time?

 

 

 

Well, maybe the key is the answer to that question. Do you have an answer?

 

 

 

Yes, but it is my own personal theory. I'm gambling that the motivating force behind time is the nuclear reaction on the sun that changes hydrogen to helium. Basically a change in mass. A recent figure I acquired on the internet was 4 billion tons of mass per second, disappears on our sun. So if I want to play with time, I first have to find observations where mass is changing. Remember I said the gyroscope behaves as if it has more mass because of the pushback force. That mass would have to change in intensity as the gyroscope spins down. If you look at individual point masses along the circumference of the gyroscope, you see that MV^2/R is changing in intensity and direction. So my candidate for a time force is a force changing in intensity and direction. I also reasoned that the metal disk in the video above has more mass too. Because it would take more energy to pull it out of the trap it appears to be stuck in. Also in the video you'll notice that the disk appears to be frozen in position regardless of whether there is a push or pull force. Push or pull, plus or minus, two Lorentz forces? I'm looking at a magnetic propulsion drive. It's right there in the video and I never realized it. I think this is going to be my next experiment. Just to prove my suspicions that there really are two Lorentz forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RMT

 

But the point is... even if you are going to infer something as wild as "sticky space" from such non-instrumented experiements, it is very definitely "poor science" to try and do it with only one experimental data point.

 

Agreed?

 

 

I think Faraday would probably spit in your face. Look what he had to work with. It's been my experience that if you want to prove something wrong, you can. I don't want to go down the wrong path. I want to go down the right path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darby

 

I suppose that the best way for you to test your theory vs. Ray's theory is this:

 

Each of you design and build an airplane.

 

 

That's too easy. Let's pick a time machine instead. We'll see who gets one first. After all, he's an engineer. So he should have a slight edge over me. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's too easy. Let's pick a time machine instead. We'll see who gets one first. After all, he's an engineer. So he should have a slight edge over me. Right?

 

 

As always with Einstein...change it up, change the premise, wiggle around...anything but answer the precise point made by the poster. Why are you not eager to prove to us that you do not need math with a MUNDANE, proven technology such as flight? Hmmmmm?

 

The problem with your sleight of hand here, Einstein, is that the jury is still out on time travel. Moreover, I have made it clear on this forum that I do not believe that "time travel" in the romantic sense that most think of it, will ever come to pass. So why would I wish to enter into a competition to build a time machine when I know these things? Neither of us would build one... even though you would make statements along the way of "if I am right this will be the big breakthrough I have been looking for." Unfortunately, you never are right and those breakthroughs never materialize.

 

The point is to show you can do something complex without math. No need to make it a task that is even questionable that it can be done. An airplane is perfectly acceptable. I will use all my math, and you can "visualize". And we see who flies first and if their vehicle survives.

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Faraday would probably spit in your face. Look what he had to work with. It's been my experience that if you want to prove something wrong, you can. I don't want to go down the wrong path. I want to go down the right path.

 

 

Hot air and crackpottery. So let me get this straight, just to make sure I clearly understand your response:

 

So you are saying you think it is perfectly acceptable scientific practice to come to a conclusion about reality based on a SINGLE data point with only subjective data (experience) rather than objective data (measurements)?

 

Did I get that right? This is what you are saying?

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to disagree with you on that. Mainly because I would have to say the math comes from visualizations. Not the other way around. Only because that's the way I do it.

 

 

Actually, It can go both ways.

 

And it is only natural that you prefer one direction over the other, since you believe math isn't a good predictive tool. If a person believes math to be useless, there's little point in basing a visualization on it, right?

 

But remember that my claim wasn't about how it is "supposed" to be done. I was talking specifically about the real Einstein, and how he came up with his visualizations. And he followed the exact path I've told you. You can disagree with what he did, if you wish, but you cannot claim that he didn't work in this way, because he did.

 

 

 

I think that the idea that he used math to figure out these things out is promulgated fiction. He used math to describe his visualizations. At least that is what he taught me through his writings.

 

 

Yes, but he would never have gone as far as he did without the math. For one thing, he would never have discovered E=mc² without the math. And there are many other effects predicted by the equations of relativity that seem to defy any sort of "visualization", yet they were confirmed by experiments.

 

 

 

Of course you have to realize that I have a specific goal in mind. I want to invent an antigravity engine. Take a look around. Don't see anyone figuring that out. Obviously to me, I'm going to hav to choose some unorthodox methods to acquire that knowledge.

 

 

I'm not so sure that this is necessary.

 

The orthodox approach gave us nuclear power, lasers, computers, genetic engineering, men walking on the moon... And the rate of progress continues to be mind-boggling.

 

So why not antigravity?

 

And you still haven't answered my most important points. You keep steering the discussion away from the crux of the matter, which is a tactic I find niether respectful nor honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's too easy. Let's pick a time machine instead. We'll see who gets one first. After all, he's an engineer. So he should have a slight edge over me. Right?

 

 

Well, Einstein, until you actually have a working time machine at your disposal, this is kind of a moot point, isn't it? Right now, the score of this challange is 0:0. So if we want to know whose theory is more useful, we'll need some other yardstick.

 

Now, the conventional approach to engineering has pretty much all of modern technology - from airplanes to computers to organ transplants to interplanetary probes - to show for itself. What have you got?

 

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not claiming your visualizations are necessarily wrong. Maybe you are really on to something. But ideas alone are not enough to revolutionize physics. You also have to make them work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein2087

 

And you still haven't answered my most important points. You keep steering the discussion away from the crux of the matter, which is a tactic I find niether respectful nor honest.

 

 

I've seen this type of attack style from RMT. I'm not impressed. Have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've seen this type of attack style from RMT. I'm not impressed. Have a nice day.

 

 

Can we get a rimshot from the drummer for Einstein's favorite punchline?

 

In reality, Einstein, Einstein2087 has been exceedingly fair to you and never even approached my level of "attacks" as you call them. Let's be clear here: You have no one but yourself to blame for you becoming a "sporting pasttime" on this forum. Because if you do not like the way practitioners of honest science (like some of us here) grill you, then you do not have to reply at all.

 

Did I tell you what my latest unclassified project is at work that I will be using math to make happen? Autonomous Aerial Refueling:

 

AFRL Announces AAR Phase II

 

The "integrator" that the article discusses that AFRL was looking for turned out to be the 3 way team that my company (Northrop-Grumman) formed with Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. And I am the chief system architect for this effort. So it is a good thing you did not take-up Darby's challenge... because I am already well ahead of you in creating an autonomous airplane that will be able to refuel itself at an air refueling tanker.... thanks to the wonders and utility of

 

mathematics! :devil:

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's too easy. Let's pick a time machine instead. We'll see who gets one first. After all, he's an engineer. So he should have a slight edge over me. Right?

 

 

 

Wrong. I get to choose the experiment, not you. It would be self-serving for you, as a participant in the contest, to choose the method.

 

Design the airplane, sans math, and test fly it with you at the stick.

 

You chose the name of the game, no bunk math trial and error vs bunk math scientific method. I chose the method for you to prove your point. If you're correct then there should be no unreasonable risk to your health and well being. If you're a loon and wrong then there may well be some degree of risk.

 

Game on. Just do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen this type of attack style from RMT.

 

 

Huh? Attack? What on earth are you talking about?

 

I simply said that you have ignored my most important points. How is that an attack? It's the simple truth.

 

 

I'm not impressed.

 

 

Good, because I wasn't trying to impress you. I was trying to have an honest conversation with you. But you aren't making it easy for me, Einstein.

 

Anyway, I want to tell you that I got absolutely nothing against you. Just because we disagree on some things, doesn't mean I don't respect you as a human being. And if you ever want to have an open and honest discussion with me about any topic in the world, I'm listening.

 

Have a nice and wonderful day, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You chose the name of the game, no bunk math trial and error vs bunk math scientific method. I chose the method for you to prove your point. If you're correct then there should be no unreasonable risk to your health and well being. If you're a loon and wrong then there may well be some degree of risk.

 

 

Well, this challange isn't very fair... After all, Darby, you can't design an aeroplane either, can you? (And even if you can, the average engineer cannot - at least not by himself).

 

Einstein, feel free to choose your method of proof. It doesn't even have to be a working piece of technology. After all, the real Einstein wasn't required to build a nuclear bomb in order to prove relativity, was he? His demonstration was something as simple as predicting the effect of the sun's gravity on starlight during an eclipse. If you present us with this kind of evidence, I'll be satisfied.

 

Of-course, there is no penality for achieving something bigger. If you want to build an actual working device, go for it. And if you prefer to tackle the incredibly difficult problem of time travel over building an aeroplane, that's your choice.

 

But whatever you have in mind, just do it. Because boasting about things that you haven't done yet is a little silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...