Thank you Christine! I'm glad you're enjoying this.

Truth is while yes I use the left brain I also have quite a penchant for the right brain. I sincerely believe marrying the two sides will in fact compliment/balance each other. This particular member has no idea what content is in the right side of my brain. So I just quietly removed myself from that thread and backed out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_paradox
Bill's adds are proving to be quite relevant as well!

~

I would like for the moment to add something which floored me today.

I love to watch movies. Mostly because it sort of runs in the family. Films that is.

Example: One person who gave an extremely moving eulogy at my late son's funeral was Harry Lennix (Captain Lock) from the movie the Matrix Reloaded.

~

There is a new movie out I've not seen yet but it seems to be all the rage with a group of physicists up for debate.

I about fell out of my chair once again! I saw some comments made by Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the movie which again I'd not seen yet.

Here I am on the 10th of November posting/discussing Seth Loyd's take on the `unproved theorem paradox'

“We want to perform the so-called `unproved theorem paradox' experiment, in which the time traveler sees an elegant proof of a theorem in a book,” Lloyd said. “She goes back in time and shows the proof to a mathematician, who includes the proof in the book that he is writing. Of course, the book is the same book from which the time traveler took the proof in the first place. Where did the proof come from? Our theory has a specific prediction/retrodiction for this paradox, which we wish to test experimentally.”

Read more at:

http://phys.org/news/2011-03-grandfather-paradox.html
I briefly discuss the tesseract and "six cube"....

Then on the 11th Neil tweets on this movie new movie Interstellar:

"Mysteries of #Interstellar: If you can poke through a tesseract and touch books, why not just write a note & pass it through".

I kid you not!

Is a tesseract in that movie? OR the unproved theorem paradox?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6140674.html
Adding from another review/debate of the movie and a quote:

Could habitable planets actually orbit a black hole, as they do in the film?

Not as far as we know. As our colleague Phil Plait asks, “Where do the planets get heat and light? You kinda need a star for that.” What’s more,

in order for the water planet to have such extreme time dilation (one hour there equals seven years on earth), it would, Plait writes, “need to be just over the surface of the black hole, and I mean just over the surface, practically skimming it.” But because of way black holes affect space, no planet could have a stable orbit that close to one. Plait addresses additional problems with the science in the movie in his own piece about the film.

Update, Nov. 9. 2014: Plait has retracted some of his complaints about the movie, noting that he had based his calculations on the assumption that the black hole is non-rotating. Things are different with a black hole that‘s rapidly spinning: “From what I can find, there is a stable orbit around a rotating black hole that can produce that kind of time dilation, so I was wrong there,” Plait writes.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/...he_blight.html
I have to add to this:

My power is on the horizon ~ Coffin Texts

I suppose I need to go see this movie now. Whoa!

(((picking myself up off the floor once again)))

Spooky action at a distance!

## Bookmarks