Ask a string theorist how matter behaves on its most fundamental level, and they will have an answer for you. Ask a cosmologist how a black hole forms, and they will have an answer. But the fact is that both treat their phenomena as occuring ON TOP OF the fabric of spacetime (FOST). As if matter were some sort of extra layer that in no way depends on the FOST for it's existence. This simply cannot be true. Let us perform a paradigm shift. Ready?

I believe that the fabric of spacetime is made up of the Bose-Einstein condensate. That is, the FOST is made up of the same baryonic matter as you and I.

Let's examine this idea. What is the Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC)? I would like to recommend this as the dossier to the BEC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls4efnPKegY

Let us now tie everything together. The temperature in interstellar space is certainly cold enough to be a BEC, but isn't it that cold because matter is extremely diffuse there? No. Remember the BEC has properties akin to a wave, not a particle. There is ALOT of matter in interstellar space. However, it is the case that the wave functions have not decohered because there is no one there to perform a quantum measurement on it. If only we could hang out in the interstellar medium with scanning electron microscopes! Then we would see how densely packed with matter it really is! Perhaps, I will leave it at that and let your imagination take over.

It has not escaped my notice that this resolves the mutual exclusivity of quantum mechanics and general relativity, and is thus a "theory of everything". This conclusion may also lend itself to the problem of dark matter and dark energy, which are certainly illusory concepts that would do well to leave our collective consciousness. Cheers!

Time and Space Travel exists.

Time Travel exists because we travel through time every moment of our lives, and we travel through space every time we move around.

Therefore, if on a small scale it is possible, we can assume that it is possible on a large scale. However, by the time we get to a stage where time travel is possible we will only go forward, never backward, purely because we are still discovering things, if backwards time travel was possible we would already know about it.

If the universe or the latest incarnation of the universe we inhabit started with a Big Bang, I can understand why matter is hurling away from the point of singularity and the universe is said to be expanding.  

If that motion result from the Big Bang, intuitively, I would expect that the energy of that explosion would dissipate over time and that the rate that the universe expands would decline. 

If I am wrong, and the absence of impediments and friction in the vacuum of space negate the dissipation of energy, then I would expect the universe to expand at a constant rate. 

Observations from the Hubble Telescope tell us that the rate at which the universe is expanding is accelerating.

How can this be? For this to happen, a new release of energy is required. Where does it come from? 

 If the sun are made up of different chemicals they would have different masses for the same size.  Wouldnt this affect the way gravity is acting on them and thus the way they orbit each other?  Once again I'm very aware physics is not my strongest science so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Not that many things matter "in the big scheme of things" and, for your enjoyment/education, I will now type a list on digitalgoodness.info:

cleaning up the environment
global "government"
ending poverty
curing all disease
genomic medicine
space travel and exploration
measuring life in other areas of the universe

These things are 100% attainable. Strange.

oh, and figuring out the mystery that is time...

Of course the GRB moves at the speed of light, so if we are to defend ourselves from it, we must prepare in advance, and focus only on stars that have a higher probability of sending us such a nasty surprise.  That would mean to limit it to stars that are close enough to be able to inflict any damage, and whose poles are facing us.  Other than that the probability will be too low ( not like it isn't low already ) to consider spending millions, even billions on missions.  The idea itself is very simple - you block the incoming GRB with an asteroid, and since the ray spreads over a distance, it is simply a matter of calculating the size it needs to be, and distance it must be from Earth in order to make a large enough hole for us to get through.  Think of it sort of like an umbrella - when the rain falls down, the umbrella doesn't let anything get through, so whatever's underneath is safe.  The really hard part about the realization of this defense is that the asteroid must be put into an orbit that always puts it between the Earth and the star in question.  This can be done by sending a satellite to land on the asteroid, in which case solar - powered propellers will guide the asteroid into orbit and make adjustments as necessary either by themselves or by a command center back home.  There isn't much need for power in space so solar power will probably do the trick here.  One negative component to this idea is that we won't be able to accurately observe the star, since it is blocked by the asteroid, but an additional benefit would be to use this mission as a guinea pig for manipulation of objects in space.

Constructive criticism and comments will be appreciated. 

Of course, I might properly have said "Freud accepted ..." rather than "Freud believed in ..."  And I might have made the point that Freud was driven reluctantly to that conclusion by actual experience during the treatment of patients.

But I'm not mainly asking about your judgment of an argument or a piece of evidence.  Instead, I'm asking if you are equipped to consider an argument or some evidence.  I'm asking about your larger paradigm and the firmness of your commitment to it.

Are you definitely committed to a worldview in which thought is less real than physical activity?  Or can you genuinely consider evidence that thought is a universal fundamental aspect of reality, perhaps that thought and physical existence are the same thing?

After all, if you genuinely considered this stuff and weighed it on the merits, you would be joining Einstein.

And would it perhaps at least give us some traction on explaining the mathematical nature of reality?

I don't see this fundamental rule of the scientific method changing any time soon.

Personally I think If we discovered an alien civilization I would be shocked, excited, and anxious. The last thing on my mind would be fear or the need to conquer. I would have hope that new and exciting things were around the corner. I think I can expect similar reactions from those I know well.

Humans employ the concept of time to measure the gap (interval) between events according to a standard unit of measure - e.g. seconds, minutes.  In the same way, humans have created the concept of distance to measure the gap (interval) between objects.

Theories about time dimensions, time journey, and time warps are mere fanciful stories designed to inspire human imagination.  In vain, some people have attempted to ascribe properties of reality to the concept of time and thereby intermingle time and other human theoretical explorations.  With such aberrations of a simple concept, humans are faced with delusional ideas such as ‘gravitational time dilation.’ 

In retrospect, I suppose those fanciful stories and imaginative adventures lift humans from the humdrum of everyday life - one measured by mere seconds and minutes and years.

To make an example of this imagine an apple.  The outside of the apple is the infinite universe which is space/time.  The inside of the apple is time/space which is a continuous loop that can be traveled.  In order to reach time/space you must be able to pierce the veil and get in to time/space from space/time.  Of course I know the apple isn't infinite, but imagine that apple as the infinite universe.

Time is relative:  it happens here, to me, differently than it happens there, to you.  How fast time passes here depends on my position in relation to a gravity well and my relative motion.  The same goes for you - but relative to your location and motion.  But one thing is sure:  we are both heading in the same direction.  We are both getting older.  Now, if I'm on a global positioning satellite geostationary above you, I am travelling much faster thn you are and there is a corresponding difference in how fast time is passing.  I can observe you getting older more quickly than I am:  you can observe me aging more slowly.  If, however, we both meet up at either your place or mine, we will then be aging at the same rate.

So, is time real?  I think the answer is that time is as real as space, so we could be heading into semantics territory here.    Physicists combine space and time into a four-dimensional "spacetime" which inextricably relates the measurement of space and the measurement of time together and neatly explains why speed (through space) affects the passage of time.  Logically, one could not have space without time and vice versa, so the question "Is time real?" should be phrased "Is spacetime real?", to which the answer is "yes".

Outside sci-fi, time travel as such remains impossible.  I can speed up or slow down what Prof Hawkings calls "The Arrow of Time" by changing my relative motion through space.  If I travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, you will observe me aging very slowly;  but I will observe myself aging at the same rate as I always have.