Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 2:46:58 PM EDT
Quoted:
[url]http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html[/url]
View Quote


I'm taking a look at that link and perhaps I'll comment later.


The point I wanted to convey is my own belief that SRT is flawed logic.
In order to uphold C, you allow d and t to become variables? Does not make sense. Not to this engineer.
View Quote


I don't think the SRT is the end of the discussion or the end of what we have to learn.  But I think it's the best explanation of what we currently know.  I have my own questions about it.  The Michelson-Morley experiment never really seemed satisfying to me.  I don't think we know enough about whether the speed of light stays constant over time or is the same in other parts of the universe.  But saying I have questions about those things is different than having proof one way or the other.

My experience in the physics department at my university was that the theoretical physicists could get a little bit out there but the experimental physicists were pretty well grounded in reality.

You're an engineer. Doesn't engineering prove out the validity of science.  The fact that we can build stuff according to the laws of physics and have it work is strong evidence in support of them.  I see quantum theory work almost every day.  (I work with integrated circuits.)  I don't work with SRT, but there has been plenty of engineering done based on that physics that has worked, too.


BTW: Quantum physics and SRT do not sleep together. You cannot have both.
View Quote


People say that, but I'm not sure it's true.  Neither one is a complete description of the universe.


Alot of predictions of SRT theory do match reality. Alot of them do not.
The point I am trying to make is that I find
To rebut your comment on models, theories, and reality I as you to “consider the following: (Bill Nye rules!): Do you really think that the E-field around a electron changes shape dependant on the velocity of the observer? That is complete bullshit. "The SRT model did not predict this abberation but that is because we were in the same inertial frame. If we had been on the moon, we would have got the correct answer. Dude, that is alot of test cable!!
View Quote


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying with your example.


SRT is so far away from reality that is why it so hard to conceptualize.
View Quote


Agreed.  Very few of us work with things that go at relativistic speeds.


Science des not always work.
View Quote


If it did, we'd be done.  That won't ever happen.

It has better odds outside of SRT and the malipulation of physical constants. The theory insures itself because it has a excuse for when the results do not match the predictions. When SRT fails, Physics who promote the theory state that you must use RT, when the opposide happens; SRT comes into play.
View Quote


Uh, that wasn't the way I perceived it.  It always seemed to me like SRT played by the same rules everyone else did.  Now the general theory of relativity, that I didn't completely understand--Einstein was over my head on that one.  

BTW, how much physics training have you had?  I'm not asking to trying to discredit you, I'm just curious how you got the impression of physicists as being a bunch of shady characters.  The physicists I've been around were never like that.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 2:56:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 3:33:10 PM EDT

I'm taking a look at that link and perhaps I'll comment later.
View Quote


No hurry, the Beckmann stuff is better reading.


I don't think the SRT is the end of the discussion or the end of what we have to learn.  But I think it's the best explanation of what we currently know.  I have my own questions about it.  The Michelson-Morley experiment never really seemed satisfying to me.  I don't think we know enough about whether the speed of light stays constant over time or is the same in other parts of the universe.  But saying I have questions about those things is different than having proof one way or the other.

My experience in the physics department at my university was that the theoretical physicists could get a little bit out there but the experimental physicists were pretty well grounded in reality.

You're an engineer. Doesn't engineering prove out the validity of science.  The fact that we can build stuff according to the laws of physics and have it work is strong evidence in support of them.  I see quantum theory work almost every day.  (I work with integrated circuits.)  I don't work with SRT, but there has been plenty of engineering done based on that physics that has worked, too.
View Quote


Agreed.
As a engineer, I am more of a slave to Faraday's laws. [:D] RT or SRT do not apply in my world. Thank god.


People say that, but I'm not sure it's true.  Neither one is a complete description of the universe.
View Quote

Einstein and Heisenberg did'nt agree on much.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying with your example.
View Quote


SRT predicts that the E field will converge on the poles of a axis perpendicular to the direction of the electron, or to the observer. Why would the the motion of the observer effect the electron's physical state? If it is happening in the observer's environment but not to that static observer, it it really happening?
Its just another SRT paradox.  




Uh, that wasn't the way I perceived it.  It always seemed to me like SRT played by the same rules everyone else did.  Now the general theory of relativity, that I didn't completely understand--Einstein was over my head on that one.
View Quote

Newton and Galileo never sacrificed time and distance to adapt their models. "I dont see how SRT can be considered playing by the rules."


BTW, how much physics training have you had?  I'm not asking to trying to discredit you, I'm just curious how you got the impression of physicists as being a bunch of shady characters.  The physicists I've been around were never like that.
View Quote


Just BS level degree with a few classes in modern science. I'm no physics guru. All the stuff I been blabbering about here was though my own curiousity and study.
I do not find Physicists to be shady. I did not mean to convey that thought. I think that there is a better model out there than SRT. I am frustrated that few scientists feel the need to investigate outside of SRT.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 7:38:50 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
A theory with proof.  Neutrinos are good evidence.  General relativity has a lot going for it too (e.g. gravitational lensing).  I don't know the exact attributes of tachyons, but they are massless, right?
View Quote


Tachyons from what I have read are particles that exist in theory, they are considered have imaginary mass. The reason that we do not know if they exist is because they are impossible to observe. The less energy they have the faster they go. A tachyon with zero energy has infinite speed. It would require infinite energy to get a tachyon to slow down to the speed of light. Boomholzer sounds Like our resident physics expert here so you should ask him because I just read this stuff in my spare time. Im a trekkie i cant help it.
View Quote


Bizarre!  Your description of a tachyon sounds like a complete inversion of all the (theoretical) properties of 'ordinary' matter.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 7:52:25 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:


Transporters .....

im talking for human use. the data space needed to do it would be insane. for foodstuffs, ect more likley. because its basic structures with no advanced systems.
View Quote


I still disagree.

Remember when IBM predicted a market of less than a dozen computers worldwide, and predicted they would be the size of a small house?

Like any technology, it's a matter of scaling it up.  3D memory will provide exponential growth in memory capacity, nano & quantum -technology could provide huge boosts in processing capability, so who knows how much we can scale this up?

Sure, a human would be a tremendous amount of bandwidth, but we could even use lossy compression.  Maybe you forward you pattern on a 3D datacube, and the transporter just "updates" your image when you are teleported.  Far less bandwidth just transmitting the changes.  Much of the "data" for your body is repeatative and could be compressed.

Who knows?  Think outside the box!  (be the box!)
View Quote



the biological will be easy to store, not much to worry about. however the problem would be the memory/thought patterns, easy to store? probably. but the human mind stores it in such detail as you would probably need the currently available total mass storage space of the worlds functional harddrives to store a 80 year old mans memory. (possibly a slight over estimation but im tired)
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 10:17:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 10:53:22 PM EDT
Quoted:
I would never step into a transporter similar to Quantum teleportation because its a copy not the real you, you die and the copy lives as if nothing ever happened to him.
View Quote


Wow, think of the possibilities...

I could send my copy to fight with the IDF, and still stay safe at home.

I sure hope that we see some incredible advances in the next 30 years or so.
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 5:43:33 AM EDT
We obviously have some folks here who are extremely knowledgable about physics, so I have a minor question.

Given, my own knowledge is limited to a couple of survey courses (althoguh I do clearly remember my profeesor quoting another scientist in saying that if you can't explain your theory to a barmaid in less than five minutes, you don't really understand it, either). Doesn't the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle sort of stand everything else on it ear? If Heisenberg, which apparently can be proved, is correct, then the rest of physics and mathematics are only approximations which work most of the time, but are sometimes wrong because the universe is a really screwed up place.

Doesn't that mean that anything is possible (even if it is very highly unlkely)? And if anything is possible, in an infite, open universe, the chances are that it will eventually happen somewhere. Comments?
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 12:02:28 PM EDT
Quoted:
It's from [i]The Four Loves[/i].  The actual quote is "The only place outside of Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell," but that doesn't fit within the 100-character limit of the signature, so I had to paraphrase a bit.
View Quote


Thanks, that's one of the few things he wrote that I haven't read.
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 12:50:08 PM EDT
I think that it was, Stephan Hawking, who already proved that E=mc2 is not the be all end all equation governing our universe. Deep space visual and radio telescopes have recently proved the existence of black holes by their byproducts. One of these byproducts is anti-matter which in fact is repelled by gravity. With a E=mc2 universe, there is nothing including light that can escape from a black hole. Anti-matter does not fall in. Repusion of infinate gravity leads you to believe that there would aslo be an anti-gravity. Controlling anti-matter and anti-gravity could be the key to warping space and faster than light travel.

Don't forget that some scientist have already sent radio messages 4x the speed of light. The message was actually recieved before it was even sent. This phenomena is a little different since it deals with the quantum world, but I wouldn't doubt that they will be able to find a link to faster than light communication in the macro world also.
Link Posted: 5/11/2002 3:49:04 PM EDT
SODIE    You are correct in my way of thinking,there are black holes with a pull that bends space and time in on itself.

You could and will take this journey ,but you can't do it in this body.  When your best friends and family find you gone,and your absolutely lifeless body laying there .

Your spirit(pure energy)is gone and on it's travel. So you can't do it in this body,is all I can say about that.

Bob       [:D]       The proof of the pudding is in the eating,but we all don't want to die to find out!
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 12:21:59 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh . . . I take it, then, that you don't know about the U.N. treaties, which the U.S. signed, regarding space exploration?  Private companies aren't allowed to do so without governmental permission.  And no government allows it -- especially not the U.S. government.
View Quote


No, I had not heard of it.  Do you have any links to the specifics?
View Quote

Ten seconds on Google.  "UN space treaty".  Second item (the first item is a main page which links to the second, which is specific to this treaty).
[url]http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/ost.html[/url]

I think the key clause behind barring private exploration is this one:
[red]States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities[/red]
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 12:26:28 AM EDT
Quoted:
Most modern theoretical physicists are starting to embrace string theory, which neatly provides a TOE (Theory Of Everything).  Of particular importance is the so-called Lucas Equation:

[img]www.dimensional.com/~mwluse/lucas.jpg[/img]
View Quote

Serious?  I couldn't find it in Google, at least not quickly.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 12:51:19 AM EDT
Quoted:
[url]http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/ost.html[/url]

I think the key clause behind barring private exploration is this one:
[red]States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities[/red]
View Quote


Whooo wait a minute boy, that is a far sight away from saying that spaceflight by anyone but NASA is banned...I can see how something worded that loosely could but [i]used[/i] to give a monopoly but it could just as easily be interpreted the other way. It could be interpreted as simply requiring the US Air Force to be responsible for seeing that anything we launch doesn't fall on any other country or collide with any other countries spacecraft (which they do- range control for all US space launches is provided by the USAF including all of NASA's launches).

We have never BANNED anyone from building a launch vheicle in this country. But NASA does create a situation where it sucks down all funding availble and hogs the commercial market for space payloads. Just try to get insurance on your satellite if you choose anyone OTHER than NASA to put it into orbit.  Not to metion the psychological dampening effect they have...its assumed by far too many people that if NASA with all its people and its enormous budget cant get something done then it is truly impossible...
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 1:17:14 AM EDT
Orbital does their own space launches, they arent a government agency...
[url]http://www.orbital.com/LaunchVehicles/Pegasus/pegasus.htm[/url]

Neither are these people:
[url]http://www.sea-launch.com/[/url]
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 2:50:41 AM EDT
Quoted:
Orbital does their own space launches, they arent a government agency...
[url]http://www.orbital.com/LaunchVehicles/Pegasus/pegasus.htm[/url]

Neither are these people:
[url]http://www.sea-launch.com/[/url]
View Quote

Yeah, and Boeing does their own too.  Boeing, Orbital, and the rest of them (Sea Launch is a joint venture involving Boeing, the Russians, and a few others) are all still part of our enormous military-industrial-complex and are doing it primarily as government contractors, NOT as "private" space explorers.

We have never BANNED anyone from building a launch vheicle in this country.
View Quote

Oh, no, of course not.  And you can still get a CCW permit in Los Angeles or NYC.  Just be a movie star or a politician.  Same thing in Chicago, politicians and judges are, by law, allowed to CCW -- but of course nobody else is.

The very few truly private ventures have been dragged through the red-tape swamps by the feds until they croaked, and I haven't heard of a single successful launch by any yet.  The last attempt I can recall, around 1998 or 1999, caught fire on the launch pad and immolated itself.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 4:39:09 AM EDT
Ok, Boston, boomholzer, marvl & sodie,

You guys are informed and smart, and you have offered some books that I have not read, but will.

Just to throw a few kinks into the argument and stir up the pot.

1) to sodie, Stephen Hawking is correct, e=mc2 is not the end all equation.  Did you know that Einstein himself explained that his theory had to many variables to be accepted as fact?  Did you also know that he was working feveriously on a unified field theory before he died?  Did you also know that he felt the only way to prove or disprove SRT was through a unified field theory?  Einstein said on a number of occasions that Realtivity was a THEORY, and like all theories it is subject to research and proof or disproof.

2) As for string theory, science has accepted it for a long time. I had read some time ago, and I do not remember where, that the NSA required colleges to remove certian parts of the theory, due to its sensative nature. I do not know all the details of this, and I read this back in 1984, so please don't ask me to provide a reference to the comment. BUT, if it is so then.....

Don't tell me science is not politically motivated or controlled!!!

So here are a few kinks in the whole physics arguments.

First law of thermo-dynamics is that energy can be either created nor destroyed, and it is constant.  Since every system has a measurable energy loss, then any system that creates energy will require more energy at input than can be produced.

According to Quantum physics, (It's been a long time so don't ask me which law) there is an infinite amount of energy in a single atomic particle.  So accordingly, there should be enough energy in a single electron to run everything on planet earth and more.

I personally don't get this, the first law of thermodynamics and the infinite energy theory are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum, if one is correct than the other must be wrong.  Yet both are still valid in science to this day.

What's up with that?

Next how about this, with particle accelrators, and other devices it has been demonstrated that light can be either observed as a wave phenomonon, or a particle phenomonon, depending on the observer but not both at the same time.

If that's not a head banger than I don't know what is?

I did get a degree many years ago in Geophysics, and I had alot of difficulty with contradictions and politically motivated science, but science has a long way to go before it is the end all in discovery.

Also, id DO NOT work with any of it any more, I'm a network analyst, so what the hell do I know?

Just wanted to through a few things out for thought!!!!

What do you all think?

starsil9

Hey, also pardon the spelling, and I noticed that spell check finds the miss spelled words but does not change them!!!

Oh well!!!!
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:23:23 PM EDT
The term 'superluminal propulsion' brings to mind the burrito I ate not long ago.......
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:44:34 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most modern theoretical physicists are starting to embrace string theory, which neatly provides a TOE (Theory Of Everything).  Of particular importance is the so-called Lucas Equation:

[img]www.dimensional.com/~mwluse/lucas.jpg[/img]
View Quote

Serious?  I couldn't find it in Google, at least not quickly.
View Quote


Look closely Achmed. Lucas, R2D2, and C3PO...


Scott

Link Posted: 5/12/2002 11:17:12 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most modern theoretical physicists are starting to embrace string theory, which neatly provides a TOE (Theory Of Everything).  Of particular importance is the so-called Lucas Equation:

[img]www.dimensional.com/~mwluse/lucas.jpg[/img]
View Quote

Serious?  I couldn't find it in Google, at least not quickly.
View Quote

Look closely Achmed. Lucas, R2D2, and C3PO...
View Quote

Yes, I noticed that right away.  I thought that perhaps Lucas was making a cute reference to a real equation, much as he has tucked "THX1138" into a few of his movies as a reference to his first.

So does that mean that their [s]names[/s]designations are an homage, or is it a joke??
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 6:29:47 AM EDT
Quoted:
We obviously have some folks here who are extremely knowledgable about physics, so I have a minor question.

Given, my own knowledge is limited to a couple of survey courses (althoguh I do clearly remember my profeesor quoting another scientist in saying that if you can't explain your theory to a barmaid in less than five minutes, you don't really understand it, either). Doesn't the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle sort of stand everything else on it ear? If Heisenberg, which apparently can be proved, is correct, then the rest of physics and mathematics are only approximations which work most of the time, but are sometimes wrong because the universe is a really screwed up place.

Doesn't that mean that anything is possible (even if it is very highly unlkely)? And if anything is possible, in an infite, open universe, the chances are that it will eventually happen somewhere. Comments?
View Quote


The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that precision with which you know a particle's momentum affects the precision with which you can know its position, and vice versa.  This is because in the act of observing its momentum, you will change its position, and vice versa.  In making a measurement, you disturb the system.  This precision is so small that is has no practical consequence at a macroscopic level, but it does come into play when making observations at a microscopic level.

It doesn't say that the rest of physics is wrong.  Quantum mechanics in general could be taken to say that anything is possible.  However, some of the probabilities are so small, they are extremely unlikely to even happen in the life of the universe.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 6:37:26 AM EDT
Quoted:
2) As for string theory, science has accepted it for a long time. I had read some time ago, and I do not remember where, that the NSA required colleges to remove certian parts of the theory, due to its sensative nature. I do not know all the details of this, and I read this back in 1984, so please don't ask me to provide a reference to the comment. BUT, if it is so then.....

Don't tell me science is not politically motivated or controlled!!!
View Quote


You think colleges would do that?  You don't understand the liberal nature of universities then!  The NSA or the CIA would be the last group academics would buckle under to.  



So here are a few kinks in the whole physics arguments.

First law of thermo-dynamics is that energy can be either created nor destroyed, and it is constant.  Since every system has a measurable energy loss, then any system that creates energy will require more energy at input than can be produced.
View Quote


No, you state the first law in your first sentence and go on to contradict it in the second sentence.  Every isolated system has constant energy.  It is false to say that every system has a measurable energy loss.


According to Quantum physics, (It's been a long time so don't ask me which law) there is an infinite amount of energy in a single atomic particle.  So accordingly, there should be enough energy in a single electron to run everything on planet earth and more.
View Quote


No, there is not an infinite amount of energy in a single atomic particle.  There is a large amount of energy, but it is not infinite.


Next how about this, with particle accelrators, and other devices it has been demonstrated that light can be either observed as a wave phenomonon, or a particle phenomonon, depending on the observer but not both at the same time.

If that's not a head banger than I don't know what is?
View Quote


Pretty cool, huh?
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 4:28:45 AM EDT
[b]Quoted:
2) As for string theory, science has accepted it for a long time. I had read some time ago, and I do not remember where, that the NSA required colleges to remove certian parts of the theory, due to its sensative nature. I do not know all the details of this, and I read this back in 1984, so please don't ask me to provide a reference to the comment. BUT, if it is so then.....

Don't tell me science is not politically motivated or controlled!!![/b]

[b]You think colleges would do that? You don't understand the liberal nature of universities then! The NSA or the CIA would be the last group academics would buckle under to. [/b]

Boston, sorry it took me so long to get back, was off work and away for a few days.

To answer your question I DON'T KNOW?
I would really love to think NO, but I'm just relaying what I read.

Ya know how those conspiracy nuts are?

And to add, I've seen colleges do some messed up things due to political pressure, so I really don't know.

[b]So here are a few kinks in the whole physics arguments.

First law of thermo-dynamics is that energy can be either created nor destroyed, and it is constant. Since every system has a measurable energy loss, then any system that creates energy will require more energy at input than can be produced.[/b]

[b]No, you state the first law in your first sentence and go on to contradict it in the second sentence. Every isolated system has constant energy. It is false to say that every system has a measurable energy loss.[/b]

I apologize for my ignorance in this statement, as it has been 20 years since I studied thermo.  Graduated in 1984.

I recall, that no system has a closed energy constant, and that in theory this may be so, but in mesuarable applications it has never been demonstrated to be so.

It may have been a long time since I studied this stuff, but I do love talking about it.  Especially with others that understand, cause ya have to admit, ask 10 people at work or home about it and see what they say.

I would bet they all know who won survivor!!

[b]According to Quantum physics, (It's been a long time so don't ask me which law) there is an infinite amount of energy in a single atomic particle. So accordingly, there should be enough energy in a single electron to run everything on planet earth and more.[/b]

[b]No, there is not an infinite amount of energy in a single atomic particle. There is a large amount of energy, but it is not infinite.[/b]

Again it's been a long time. But I thought that it was considered almost infinite.  As it is a theory, I remeber that there was no real way to put a quantity to it.

I'd imagine that it's probably not measurable in a real life application.

Hey ever read any Zero point info.  That stuff is pretty wild also, and would really change our world if it would work!!!

It's all based on the Quantum physics principal stated above.

[b]Next how about this, with particle accelrators, and other devices it has been demonstrated that light can be either observed as a wave phenomonon, or a particle phenomonon, depending on the observer but not both at the same time.[/b]

[b]Pretty cool, huh?[/b]

Yeah it is pretty cool!!

Thanks
Starsil9

I got some wild Ideas for a Zero point generator, if your interested you can email me.






Link Posted: 5/16/2002 9:52:11 AM EDT
Quoted:
I think that it was, Stephan Hawking, who already proved that E=mc2 is not the be all end all equation governing our universe. Deep space visual and radio telescopes have recently proved the existence of black holes by their byproducts. One of these byproducts is anti-matter which in fact is repelled by gravity. With a E=mc2 universe, there is nothing including light that can escape from a black hole. Anti-matter does not fall in. Repusion of infinate gravity leads you to believe that there would aslo be an anti-gravity. Controlling anti-matter and anti-gravity could be the key to warping space and faster than light travel.

Don't forget that some scientist have already sent radio messages 4x the speed of light. The message was actually recieved before it was even sent. This phenomena is a little different since it deals with the quantum world, but I wouldn't doubt that they will be able to find a link to faster than light communication in the macro world also.
View Quote



Anti-Gravity would be cool, because then the long ago promised "Flying Cars" will be real. and possibly even conversions of older cars.. imagine a Flying Firebird.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 10:06:26 AM EDT
Quoted:
Is it needed?
View Quote

Are sailing vessels needed?

There isn't a lot out there that we need to bring back here, as the universe is all made out of the same materials you find in the periodic table no matter where you go.  FTL isn't needed to navigate the solar system which has all the resources we need. The only thing we could conceveably need from space beyond our solar system is-more space!
View Quote

There isn't a lot out there that we need to bring back here, as the Earth is all made out of the same materials you find in the periodic table wherever you go. Sailing isn't needed to navigate coastal Europe which has all the resources we need. The only thing we could concieveably need from the Americas is- more space!

And if we dont have a need to go and come back- or at least go and come back in a hurry- relitivistic speeds are fine. Because as far as the ship and its crew are concerned they are not aging any and they wont notice if its four or 44 years... its only if you are sitting on Earth waiting for said ship to bring something back that the need for FTL becomes acute.[
View Quote

And if we don't have a need to go and come back-or at least go and come back in a hurry- canoes and rafts are just fine. Because the ship and the crew are in no hurry to see their loved ones or advance mankind's store of knowledge, it is only the loved ones, the scientists, and the cartographers in Eurpoe waiting for said ship to come back that the need for sails becomes acute.

What I have wanted to know for a long time is what its the actual relationship between speed and time. If you are in a ship going at half the speed of light, are you aging half as fast already? Or does it work as a exponential or logarithmic function where you have to be going a larger fraction of the speed of light to have noticible dilation of time?
View Quote

I seem to remember an article that addressed that and it is a flattened exponential curve. I think it is 7 to 1 at 0.995 C. At 0.998 C you become a waveform and die.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 10:11:28 AM EDT
Quoted:
Don't forget that some scientist have already sent radio messages 4x the speed of light. The message was actually recieved before it was even sent. This phenomena is a little different since it deals with the quantum world, but I wouldn't doubt that they will be able to find a link to faster than light communication in the macro world also.
View Quote


I think you are referring to tunneling of protons in quantum mechanics.

Most of the hype with experiments claiming non-TEM, faster than light radio transmissions have been unsubstaniated. These measurements are very difficult to perform.



edited for grammer

Link Posted: 5/16/2002 10:15:02 AM EDT
Transporters are the only thing that i dont think is possible. projected energy fields/shields should be. energy weapons, we have them just to big and to weak. and only one setting, incinerate.
View Quote

They have already done it multiple times at CERN, but with small particles only. Just another of Gene Roddenberry's predictions come true.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 10:19:04 AM EDT
I got some wild Ideas for a Zero point generator, if your interested you can email me.
View Quote


Ever heard of an electret? Dielectric material, put under a charge while heated to the softening point, maintain charge until cool, material then will put out voltage, like a discharging capacitor, but does not discharge, ie continues until material is heated again.

Nick (another ZPE and anti-grav freak)
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 10:20:18 AM EDT
I doubt that anyone working at the National Security Agency is worried much about theoretical physics.  Why should they care?
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 10:21:40 AM EDT
Quoted:
What I have wanted to know for a long time is what its the actual relationship between speed and time. If you are in a ship going at half the speed of light, are you aging half as fast already? Or does it work as a exponential or logarithmic function where you have to be going a larger fraction of the speed of light to have noticible dilation of time

I seem to remember an article that addressed that and it is a flattened exponential curve. I think it is 7 to 1 at 0.995 C. At 0.998 C you become a waveform and die.
View Quote


Time dilation follows this relationship:

[img]http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/equations/timedial.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 10:42:28 AM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I have wanted to know for a long time is what its the actual relationship between speed and time. If you are in a ship going at half the speed of light, are you aging half as fast already? Or does it work as a exponential or logarithmic function where you have to be going a larger fraction of the speed of light to have noticible dilation of time

I seem to remember an article that addressed that and it is a flattened exponential curve. I think it is 7 to 1 at 0.995 C. At 0.998 C you become a waveform and die.
View Quote


Time dilation follows this relationship:

[img]http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/equations/timedial.gif[/img]
View Quote


Death by C. LOL
BTP, 1st I admire your knowledge. You rock.

I have seen documentation where experiemnts have claimed a (5/4) root instead of a square root (in time dilation equation). This time dilation is claimed to have nothing to due with time itself, but rather, how fundamental electric charges interact due to the retarded field potentials.  
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 10:51:05 AM EDT
Quoted:
Transporters are the only thing that i dont think is possible. projected energy fields/shields should be. energy weapons, we have them just to big and to weak. and only one setting, incinerate.
View Quote

They have already done it multiple times at CERN, but with small particles only. Just another of Gene Roddenberry's predictions come true.
View Quote


CERN developed particle transport software models for analysis. It models complex variables of; Hadrons, muens, neutrons, electrons, and other particles.
Reference Fluka and Monte Carlo 2000.
I think your confusing this with teleportation of matter or Star Trek transporters.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 12:12:59 PM EDT
Quoted:
I doubt that anyone working at the National Security Agency is worried much about theoretical physics.  Why should they care?
View Quote

You really think the guys in charge of making sure other countries weapons programs are constantly watched aren't interested in high energy and theoretical physics? Really?
A better question is why has the NSA sent several spy sattelites into Saturn and Neptune distance orbits.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 12:25:34 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
I doubt that anyone working at the National Security Agency is worried much about theoretical physics.  Why should they care?
View Quote

You really think the guys in charge of making sure other countries weapons programs are constantly watched aren't interested in high energy and theoretical physics? Really?
A better question is why has the NSA sent several spy sattelites into Saturn and Neptune distance orbits.
View Quote

How is censoring the teaching of superstring theory in the United States going to further that mission?
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 3:27:05 PM EDT
I think you are referring to tunneling of protons in quantum mechanics.

Most of the hype with experiments claiming non-TEM, faster than light radio transmissions have been unsubstaniated. These measurements are very difficult to perform.
View Quote


I forgot what technique they used, I think it was tunneling protons, but the standard arguement against faster than light speed transmission is that it is only reproducable in Quantum mechanics. Lot of good that does us in the Macro Universe. As stated in a previous post, when dealing with wierd wacky world of Quantum physics the impossible often becomes very possible.

As for unifying theories, I think that most links but the very last couple of primary forces/branches can be somewhat proved now. If you just keep increasing the heat and pressure they the forces link. The problem is that the final links would only occur/exist in that micro millisecond to the nth degree right before the big bang. Basically unprovable directly, but like most theories, there is probably a way to prove them indirectly.

[url]http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/note/Kagaku/E/kag107_superstring_e.html[/url]

Have any of you ever seen that really good Nova program about Fermat's last theorem? Talk about round about. And as demonstrated in the program, prooving this theorem was only possible in the 20th century with 20th century mathmatics. Who knows, maybe faster than light travel is a problem that will only be solved with 23rd century mathmatics and physics.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 6:42:00 PM EDT
Quoted:
CERN developed particle transport software models for analysis. It models complex variables of; Hadrons, muens, neutrons, electrons, and other particles.
Reference Fluka and Monte Carlo 2000.
I think your confusing this with teleportation of matter or Star Trek transporters.
View Quote


I think he's thinking of photon entanglement.

Edit:
And for the guy who said something about faster than light pulses, you are probably thinking of this:
[url]http://www.sciam.com/2000/0900issue/0900scicit6.html[/url]
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 7:02:22 PM EDT
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't forget that some scientist have already sent radio messages 4x the speed of light. The message was actually recieved before it was even sent. This phenomena is a little different since it deals with the quantum world, but I wouldn't doubt that they will be able to find a link to faster than light communication in the macro world also.
View Quote


I think you are referring to tunneling of protons in quantum mechanics.

Most of the hype with experiments claiming non-TEM, faster than light radio transmissions have been unsubstaniated. These measurements are very difficult to perform.



edited for grammer

View Quote


that quote is from Sodie not me.

i do remember some british (i think) scientists claiming they were able to beat a beam of light to another point with... get this... a PULSED light beam. seems to me they just found a new upper limit.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 11:52:24 PM EDT
Boomholzer,

I agree, you are VERY knowledgable, and you do ROCK!!!

Right on with the time dilation equation!!

Poikilotrm,

Thanks for answering my question about why the NSA is interested in theoretical physics.

Now again this was close to 20 years ago, but what I remeber about the article was that the NSA felt that teaching advanced string theory made the construction of many weapons sensitive to national security possible.  Added to this was the growing concern that many forgien students attending college were being trained to return to their country with this knowledge in order to provide advanced technology for their 3rd world countries.

Given what we have seen with Iraq, and their biological arsenal and nuclear power, I think that their concerns were justified.

I had seen a piece on one of the PBS channels about a nuclear physicst that under Sadam was forced to develope nuclear wepons or power technology (not sure which, don't recall which) by threats on his family.

So stating that you cannot understand why NSA would be interested in theoretical physics would tell me that you haven't been watching the news much, nor do you understand their concerns with advanced technologies ending up in the hands of nuts like Bin Laden or Sadam.

It is a real concern, and I do not blame them for putting an end to teaching the subject matter in it's complete form to any person enrolled at a university.

Hey Cammando_Guy

No I have not heard of electret, sounds pretty cool, got any links to info sites on it?

I also, decided about 6 years ago that there had to be better technology out there than we have available to us through commercial resources, but most of what I've read about seems either to wierd to try to construct, or just plain a waist of time (ie. wouldn't work no matter how much money you dump into the project).

Like I said before though, I have not studied indepth any hard core physics in the last 18 years or so.  Most has been reading for my own info.

As a Network Analyst, I spend most of my study time with my face in geek books on CISCO, or UNIX, or some other snoozer material.

Believe me, if you can't sleep pick up a book on CISCO routers!!!!

Who needs sleeping pills?

starsil9

Oh, yeah, I work nights so I usually don't get much of a chance to post during the day.

But I really love this web site!!!  It ROCKS!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 12:00:17 AM EDT
woops,

Sorry Boston, need to read the posts more carefuly, as it was you that posted the time dialation equation.

Boston you also rock, as you are very knowledgable in the sciences.

Ya'all are some very smart people!!

[beer]
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 2:26:21 PM EDT
Quoted:
Sorry Boston, need to read the posts more carefuly, as it was you that posted the time dialation equation.
View Quote


Err...ya...I put it on the first page.  Although his was much prettier [:D]
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 3:17:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 3:24:37 PM EDT
The people who are most facinated by tunneling protons and photon entaglement aren't the space propultion systems engineers or even the sci-fi writers...

Its the theoretical Computer Science geeks.

Just think about what both discoveries potentially mean to data transmission within computers and computer networks...
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 6:15:40 PM EDT
My apologies zonan, did not catch that.

Again, I need to read the posts more carefully!!

Any how, thanks for your contribution also.

Yo all ROCK!!!!

starsil9
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 12:07:18 PM EDT
Bunch of goddamn amateurs
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.

If you are the system administrator please click here to find out more about this error.