Sorry. Scientist here, I hate to have to be the one to explain this, but... I just found another sacred code.

Examine the following passage from Page 1, Chapter 1 of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

The house stood on a slight rise just on the edge of the village

Now, apply the following code, using the numeric values of English letters. (See chart).

Number of letters * Product of letters, divided by...

64x20x8x5x8x15x21x19x5x19x20x15x15x4x15x14x1x19x12x9x7x8x20x18x9x19x5x10x21x19x20x15x14x20x8x5x5x4x7x5x15x6x20x8x5x22x9x12x12x1x7x5

Number of words x Product of words.

14x[(20x8x5) + (8x15x21x19x5) + (19x20x15x15x4) + (15x14) + (1) + (19x12x9x7x8x20) + (18x9x19x5) + (10x21x19x20) + (15x14) + (20x8x5) + (5x4x7x5) + (15x6) + (20x8x5) + (22x9x12x12x1x7x5)]

And then, multiply it by the year Napoleon III (1873) died, divided by the age Douglas Adams Died (49), and we get...

666x10^32

HOLY SHIT.

MATH WAS MADE BY SATAN.

HAIL SATAN.

In all seriousness, these patterns in the bible are not random. They are not coincidence. And, sorry, they are not God.

They are the creation of a few bored scholars with a calculator. Being accurate to 4 significant digits is pretty bad -- I was able to obtain 666 albeit fudging at the end with the Napoleon thing.

You can use this formula to come out with any number you want, no fudging required. Note that they pay absolutely no attention whatsoever to the order of magnitude. Pi is given as 10^40, and only to 4 digits, and e is given to a completely different order of magnitude.

The way this works is simple. The numerator and denominator will produce a ratio that varies wildly depending on the word. You can use this ratio to find the first few digits of any number you like, whether it be e, pi, 666, whatever.

Two ways of finding your own ratios in the bible, or any book, really:

1. Choose a number.

2. Find a passage that roughly gives you what you need, using letter values for whatever ancient language you can get a translation is.

3. Figure out what multiplier you need from that point to acquire the number you are looking for. For me, it was 3.8318, so I found that 1873/49 is close enough within 3 significant digits. Then, if you're not as lazy as I am, you alternate the translation slightly until you get a word/letter combo to give you 666. Might take a couple hours, hence why I fudged it. There are so many translations of the bible, you can get away with it.

4. Post it online and ask people to buy your book.

As for "Does random actually occur?", yes. See the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There is a fundamental uncertainty in the universe.

You are embarrassing yourselves. A transsexual is someone who has had female genitalia surgically constructed and other male-to-female surgeries -- they would not have a penis.

Transgenders (and especially transsexuals) often go through hormone replacement therapy, which gives them a strongly feminine appearance.

The only way you can tell a transwoman from a ciswoman is by murdering her and looking for a shrunken prostate.

If you knew a single thing about women or sexuality you would know what that (photoshopped) bulge is. But with how sexually repressed conservative culture is, I can't help but imagine you looking for a hymen on a first date.

.

FYI: Some women's clothes contain padding around the genitals, especially if they are not intended to be worn with underwear. Also, many women just have a large pubic bone.

And before you say "It's just a joke!", shut it. Joke or not, I know what you meant.

Are you kidding me?

1) Liberally biased polls? Let's take a look here...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ latest polls/presgeneral/

Literally every single poll on there with the exception of USC Tracking has Clinton with a wide lead.

And USC Tracking notes very clearly that their polls use a different algorithm than the others, e.g bases things on which party's candidates the respondents voted for in previous elections, which is a mistake in an election where people are ditching party affiliation in droves.

2) The size of rallies is irrelevant to a candidate's success. Clinton is among many leaders in the past and present who is simply not trying to maximize rally attendance, instead relying on micro-management and organization. Recent examples of people who won elections despite low rally turnout - Justin Trudeau of Canada, Barack Obama (2012), George W. Bush (2004).

The best predictor of a candidate's success in history has been, sorry, polling. It has evolved over time for that very purpose.

3) What we know about Clinton is that her supporters are everyone else.

Are you aware that you are coming across as a bully?

"I sincerely doubt you are anything near being an Astro-physicist.

I am a lowly ... wrong."

It is insulting that you doubt I am an astrophysics and get on a high horse, saying "even I know TT is physically impossible", as if this were a fact that any astrophysicist would know. The scientific consensus on time travel is anticlimactically "Not enough information".

It is also insulting that you try to cast doubt on my "educational claims" by referencing "bouncing off a black hole" (which has NOTHING to do with the idea), yet I was talking about an idea older than I am that you can easily find online, especially if you bothered to go to the link I sent and click any of its sources. This is not hard, just google "Kerr black hole time travel".

This is upsetting. As a keen student of cosmology, you should know better.

PLEASE read what I say better next time, you completely missed important points, you clearly did not research any of it, you clearly did not go to the site I linker or bother to look at any of its sources, and you jumped the gun and attacked me before doing any of that. Your post was arrogant and bullyish.

" I would think that given your vast background in physics you would be familiar with the mind-numbing, if not inconceivable forces that inhibit a black hole."

I am, and I am also familiar with the fact that rotating black holes do not have the same limits as lowly/non-rotating black holes, and I am also familiar of the fact that a black hole can be plausibly treated as a white hole and entered under very specific conditions. The event horizon is a point of no return if and only if it is non-rotating, otherwise it is possible to have an escape trajectory lower than the speed of light (you could escape a normal black hole but you would have to have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light, violating general relativity).

In addition, the Kerr black hole's rotation creates a ring in the center rather than a dot, so the singularity has a macroscopic radius.

"If you DID ... into its base."

If you bothered to read what I said, you would know better.

I NEVER claimed that this could be done with present day technology, and very clearly said the opposite. I believe I said something to the effect of "we're going to need a TARDIS", i.e a fantasy level of spaceship completely unobtainable with modern technology. I also said that it is untestable.

"Too. theory."

Where in my post did I say it was a theory? Where did I give the evidence that says it's doable? It is an idea, it is plausible, meaning that the only merit that the idea has is that it is technically permissible with what we currently know, i.e it hasn't been proven impossible yet. I am not even calling it a hypothesis because I personally would give good money on it turning out to be false.

By the way, the amount of energy required to pull off such a trajectory would be absolutely massive, because one would need to accelerate a human and the thing that the human is in to relativistic speeds -- perhaps it would be a similar order of magnitude? While the energy to pull off the trajectory is something I know how to calculate, the energy to pull off resetting the earth to a previous state, we don't really know enough, and the assumptions we use in guessing would completely change the answer by many orders of magnitude.

"I will be eagerly awaiting your debunking my claim"

I did, in your above post. See it there -- you are using the infinite work argument, it is analogous to Zeno's paradox and revolves around invalid assumptions.

I find it disturbing that you dismiss my "plausible" claim without a blink and insult me, while presenting your own idea as if it were infallible.

"Meanwhile ... you."

Saint Mary's University, Halifax, NS. As for doing a conference call, until you learn how to pay attention and try to understand what people are saying, instead of glossing over what they said and treating them with less respect than a rat on your dinner plate, I would rather not.

I disagree. You are using the "infinite work" argument against time travel, whether you know it or not. It is the time travel equivalent of Zeno's paradox.

The line of logic is as follows: The absolute minimum amount of energy required to move a particle to a previous state is the work required to move it from the current state to the previous. In order to travel in time, one would have to move every single particle in the universe to a previous state, and for an infinite universe, the minimum amount of energy required for this operation is infinity.

There are quite a few problems with this line of argument.

1> You do not need to move the entire universe. You only need to move enough of the universe that the section in which you wish to travel is close enough to the desired state within some error. This answer is analogous to the solution to Zeno's Paradox.

2> The amount of energy required for such an operation is a lot... probably. We don't actually know. It depends on the potential energy in the universe. An analog: It is much easier to move something up a hill than it is to move something down a hill. Perhaps there is a universal potential energy of some sort that would make such an operation, reversing a section (!) of the universe to a previous state, permissible.

3> Space-time is not simple, it bends and twists and the distances we see are not necessarily the distances that one would need to consider when talking about time travel. (speaking of Einstein...)

The truth about (colloquial) time travel is that we do not have enough information to tell whether or not it is doable, nor what the consequences would be. So, scientifically permitting, let the imagination run.

I would explain why, but John Oliver did a better job than I could. Watch the video -- even if you disagree (i.e you are wrong about something), it's funny.

And what if they weren't?

Would you be willing to flip a coin to decide the life of everyone in the world?

Half of the world's scientists, half of the world's doctors, half of the world's teachers, half of the world's veterans, and half of the world's idiots. Half of families, half of children, half of brothers, half of sisters, half of parents, half of grandparents.

Half of the world gone. Why? Overpopulation? We can sustain what we have now. We can sustain more. Advances in genetic modification permit it.

If we want there to be less population, we should invest in contraceptives, birth control, sex education, and an infrastructure for the countries that don't have the means to acquire and teach them.

Yes, I would be sad. Half of the world gone, three billion to grieve over. Perhaps I might be lucky and my family would be spared -- but then who took their place?

Was it worth the money saved?

The extra food for everyone else?

A bit more space? More stuff? More for the lucky half?

If half the world's population is killed off, make sure I'm among the killed, because I don't want to see the aftermath.

Do you have trouble understanding English...? I am at a loss here, you seem genuinely confused and I am not being unclear here.

https://media.giphy.com/media/glmRyiSI3v5E4/giphy.gif

For relativity, certain. Naturally, it is a model, and all models have scopes, but for the issue of a human travelling in time, you are well within the scope of General Relativity and you aren't getting out any time soon.

And the above isn't actually just "scientific facts", it is a creative application of them. Time travel physics isn't a specialty, I have simply thought about it a lot (especially writing Science-Fiction) and applied what I have learned in the field.

As for ideas of how to actually pull off time travel, there is a creative, plausible, and completely untestable method of traveling in time. If you were to travel at just the right angle through a rotating black hole, you could enter the event horizon and escape without exceeding the speed of light, without being crushed, and General Relativity would permit that you could exit the "white hole" and the black hole before you left.

In order to test that, we're going to need a TARDIS.

See: http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/time-travel3.htm