Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 8/1/2002 5:11:49 PM EST
If UFOs can fly light years from other galaxies.... If they can fly faster than anything we have here on earth.... If they never crash(arguably)....If they can outmaneuver anything here on earth.... If they can come here, land, abduct and return people....... Then how come they need those silly flashing or glowing lights everybody swears they see on them?
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:14:54 PM EST
so they can see where they are landing, duh...
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:18:07 PM EST
There Turn Signals IMHO. Sgtar15
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:19:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:21:42 PM EST
There just like those big rigs you see on the interstate with a million lights on them. Damn little bastard aliens.[(:|)] They're always to out do the other guy's light show. I think I heard one bumpin over my house last night. [:D]
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:21:55 PM EST
Well if you can travel at the speed of light,you can travel through time(Proven) How do we not know these UFO's are the future of mankind comming back to take a look at their "Prehistoric Humans" ? One day when they want to finally make contact They will land on our Airfields. Are traffic contolr guys need to be able to giude them in right?? [bounce]
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:23:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 5:26:41 PM EST by ilikelegs]
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:28:53 PM EST
faster then light travel is not possible, as there is tons of space dust, asteroids, comets, and tons of little chunks of rock flying all over the place at about 17,000mph now a small chip of paint from a satellite flying at 17,000mph hit the windshield of the space shuttle and made a 1cm deep chip in the glass, this is just a small chip of paint that did this, now if your flying at faster then light, there is no way to know where every littel pebble in the galaxy is, and if you hit one of those littel chunks of rock BANG it'll punch a hole right through your ship, and you all die. not possable, no way. If you could fly faster then light, we would not be worth the risk to life and limb to find.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:33:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato: faster then light travel is not possible, as there is tons of space dust, asteroids, comets, and tons of little chunks of rock flying all over the place at about 17,000mph now a small chip of paint from a satellite flying at 17,000mph hit the windshield of the space shuttle and made a 1cm deep chip in the glass, this is just a small chip of paint that did this, now if your flying at faster then light, there is no way to know where every littel pebble in the galaxy is, and if you hit one of those littel chunks of rock BANG it'll punch a hole right through your ship, and you all die. not possable, no way. If you could fly faster then light, we would not be worth the risk to life and limb to find.
View Quote
wormholes [;)]
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:36:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 5:37:38 PM EST by M4_Aiming_at_U]
Originally Posted By m60308nato: faster then light travel is not possible, as there is tons of space dust, asteroids, comets, and tons of little chunks of rock flying all over the place at about 17,000mph now a small chip of paint from a satellite flying at 17,000mph hit the windshield of the space shuttle and made a 1cm deep chip in the glass, this is just a small chip of paint that did this, now if your flying at faster then light, there is no way to know where every littel pebble in the galaxy is, and if you hit one of those littel chunks of rock BANG it'll punch a hole right through your ship, and you all die. not possable, no way. If you could fly faster then light, we would not be worth the risk to life and limb to find.
View Quote
That would probably only apply to us small minded humans. Remember who said "Manned flight will never exist!" It was Orvell Wright 2 years before they first flew at Kitty Hawk.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:39:33 PM EST
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: they use them to attract trailer trash to the anal probing stations. mike
View Quote
LMAO!! And it's prolly even the correct answer. [:D]
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:39:56 PM EST
They must have a reason. Anyone with common sense knows we have visitors.Non believers are dumbasses,period.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:45:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 5:50:29 PM EST by m60308nato]
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: Well if you can travel at the speed of light,you can travel through time(Proven)
View Quote
no that is not proven, that is a theory. It has never been done. the fastest we have ever made an object move was a rod of steel at 40,000FPS out of a RAILGUN. for those of you who don't know about the railgun, you should. its a weapon that uses 2 preferably copper rails, because copper is cheap and the rails need to be replaced every 100 rounds fired. The two copper rails run parallel to each other, you place a metal conductive projectile between the rails this completes the circuit, now you run high voltage, pulsed electricity through the rails and the electricity throws the projectile forward... the government did a lot of work on these weapons, it was the starwars project. thay found that the weapon was far too inaccurate,(because the projectile is not spin stabilized) and far too large to ever be used as a military weapon. people are still working on ways to use the railgun to fire objects into space at a cheaper cost then to launch using a rocket.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:58:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato: faster then light travel is not possible, as there is tons of space dust, asteroids, comets, and tons of little chunks of rock flying all over the place at about 17,000mph now a small chip of paint from a satellite flying at 17,000mph hit the windshield of the space shuttle and made a 1cm deep chip in the glass, this is just a small chip of paint that did this, now if your flying at faster then light, there is no way to know where every littel pebble in the galaxy is, and if you hit one of those littel chunks of rock BANG it'll punch a hole right through your ship, and you all die. not possable, no way. If you could fly faster then light, we would not be worth the risk to life and limb to find.
View Quote
What about a "warp drive" where you wrap a piece of space around the vehicle? Classical physics tends toward a "no," while quantum physics leans to a "maybe, yes." It is still too early to tell. But certainly your warp bubble would be debris free, and such a bubble would sweep all but the biggest objects aside, as they could not penetrate such a localized space distortion. Furthermore, you are discounting the possibility of energy screens or "force shields." Remember, in the distance future, we [i]will[/i] harness nuclear fusion and quite possibly matter-energy conversion. Such technologies would yield fantastic amounts of energy, which just might make many energy field theories possible. Remember: [b][i]"The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in." Robert A. Heinlein
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:00:18 PM EST
Hmmmm....just 12 posts in over 8 months (I concede that I'm not much better, though)? This smells like disinformation to me. You are obviously an alien, tasked with the mission of confusing the sector of the civillian population most likely to resist your insidious plot to enslave mankind. I will not go down without a fight. Resist the e.t. menace! What's the best ammo to use against grays? They are generally of small stature and very slender, but they do have technology on their side.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:05:33 PM EST
Originally Posted By araddict: They must have a reason. Anyone with common sense knows we have visitors.Non believers are dumbasses,period.
View Quote
all I can say is, fuck you too. you can go on believing in littel green men if you want, I however look at the facts, it is not possible for anyone to move faster then the speed of light, have you ever though about the structural strain and stress? damn man we are lucky to reach mach 3 (3x the speed of sound 3,264FPS) in a plane with out disintegrating. now try moving at over 1,000,000 FPS to make the speed of light. good luck wont happen. if you can move this fast, how will you know what is in front of you? moving at faster then one million feet per second you better know where every littel pebble and speck of dust in the universe is. you hit anything moving that fast your fucked. I thought that the people on this web sight would understand this.... YOUR GUNS CANT SHOOT FASTER THEN 3,300FPS
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:11:24 PM EST
The lights are the result of plasma discharge around the gravity accelerators. (According to Bob Lazar, former area 51 employee) We supposedly have a plasma-discharge aircraft. The wings start to glow when it gets going. (according to some Art Bell guest)
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:17:18 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato:
Originally Posted By araddict: They must have a reason. Anyone with common sense knows we have visitors.Non believers are dumbasses,period.
View Quote
all I can say is, fuck you too. you can go on believing in littel green men if you want, I however look at the facts, it is not possible for anyone to move faster then the speed of light, have you ever though about the structural strain and stress? damn man we are lucky to reach mach 3 (3x the speed of sound 3,264FPS) in a plane with out disintegrating. now try moving at over 1,000,000 FPS to make the speed of light. good luck wont happen. if you can move this fast, how will you know what is in front of you? moving at faster then one million feet per second you better know where every littel pebble and speck of dust in the universe is. you hit anything moving that fast your fucked. I thought that the people on this web sight would understand this.... YOUR GUNS CANT SHOOT FASTER THEN 3,300FPS
View Quote
Who says guns can't shoot faster than 3,300fps?There are plenty of small bore factory & wildcat rounds that are in the 4,00fps range.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:17:23 PM EST
Originally Posted By ron97ws6: What about a "warp drive" where you wrap a piece of space around the vehicle? Classical physics tends toward a "no," while quantum physics leans to a "maybe, yes." It is still too early to tell. But certainly your warp bubble would be debris free, and such a bubble would sweep all but the biggest objects aside, as they could not penetrate such a localized space distortion. Furthermore, you are discounting the possibility of energy screens or "force shields." Remember, in the distance future, we [i]will[/i] harness nuclear fusion and quite possibly matter-energy conversion. Such technologies would yield fantastic amounts of energy, which just might make many energy field theories possible.
View Quote
I laugh of the thought of your comments, first of all, if you could wrap space arround your ship, you still have no way to make it move. NUCLEAR FUSION AND FISSION IS AN ATOMIC EXPLOSION YOU IDIOT! imploding plutonium causes nuclear explosion. fission, splitting the molicules of uranium 235 makes a nuclear explosion. matter-energy conversion.... let me think... the best matter to evergy conversion we have is to burn a fuel and make exaust fastest we can go so far is MACH 3
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:17:54 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato:
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: Well if you can travel at the speed of light,you can travel through time(Proven)
View Quote
no that is not proven, that is a theory. quote] I can't remember the name of the government project but I remember reading about an experiment that proved that time travel was possible. It may have been in Stephen Hawkins "A brief history of time", I can't remember right now. I know we talked about it in AE245 and in physics when I was in college but I did read about it somewhere else. Anyway they synchronized two atomic clocks and placed on in a B-25 and flew as fast as they could for as long as they could. When they landed the clock from the B-25 was a few thousandths slower than the clock left on the ground. This was all in an effort to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity but they ended up proving his theory valid.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:18:52 PM EST
People of Earth, resistance is futile. The lights are commanding you to send me all your money and ammo. Concentrate on the lights. Oh, and, er, make sure the money is in small bills and unmarked,.....and do not tell your IRS about this........or it's the anal probe for you!!!!!! [shock][shock][shock]
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:22:55 PM EST
Who says guns can't shoot faster than 3,300fps?There are plenty of small bore factory & wildcat rounds that are in the 4,00fps range.[/quote] im sorry i dident clarify the fastest a .223 moves is 3,300FPS if you want to do all guns ever made, THE fastest is a naval cannon at 6,000FPS but 6,000FPS is the fastest a bullet from a firearm can move because your limited by the rate the powder burns and turns into gas.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:27:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato:
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: Well if you can travel at the speed of light,you can travel through time(Proven)
View Quote
no that is not proven, that is a theory. It has never been done. the fastest we have ever made an object move was a rod of steel at 40,000FPS out of a RAILGUN. for those of you who don't know about the railgun, you should. its a weapon that uses 2 preferably copper rails, because copper is cheap and the rails need to be replaced every 100 rounds fired. The two copper rails run parallel to each other, you place a metal conductive projectile between the rails this completes the circuit, now you run high voltage, pulsed electricity through the rails and the electricity throws the projectile forward... the government did a lot of work on these weapons, it was the starwars project. thay found that the weapon was far too inaccurate,(because the projectile is not spin stabilized) and far too large to ever be used as a military weapon. people are still working on ways to use the railgun to fire objects into space at a cheaper cost then to launch using a rocket.
View Quote
Actually, it has been proven, & you don't need to travel at light speed to do it. Although light speed would really increase the time differential. Nasa scientists in the 60's used atomic clocks to prove Einstein's theory of relativity as related to time travel. They used highly accurate atomic clocks that were synchronized. One stayed on Earth, one went in orbit during mercury & appollo tests. Time passed slower for the clocks that were in orbit.Its just that with speeds we are able to acheive it takes an atomic clock to measure the small differential in time.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:29:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By Fluxion: I can't remember the name of the government project but I remember reading about an experiment that proved that time travel was possible. It may have been in Stephen Hawkins "A brief history of time", I can't remember right now. I know we talked about it in AE245 and in physics when I was in college but I did read about it somewhere else. Anyway they synchronized two atomic clocks and placed on in a B-25 and flew as fast as they could for as long as they could. When they landed the clock from the B-25 was a few thousandths slower than the clock left on the ground. This was all in an effort to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity but they ended up proving his theory valid.
View Quote
Its still a theory, the speed of light has never been reached, so I don't see why you just wasted your time writing this.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:34:59 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato: no that is not proven, that is a theory. It has never been done. the fastest we have ever made an object move was a rod of steel at 40,000FPS out of a RAILGUN.
View Quote
No. Physicists use cyclotrons to accellerate masses to near relativistic speeds all the time. Then they watch the boom when they ram the masses together head on. Sometimes I think physicists are just rednecks with degrees who want to blow shit up just to see it fly. I know I do.
for those of you who don't know about the railgun, you should. its a weapon that uses 2 preferably copper rails, because copper is cheap and the rails need to be replaced every 100 rounds fired.
View Quote
I was unaware of this. If you have any links I would like to see them. All the railguns I have seen personally (floor models) and all the pictures I have seen used large, capacitor fired electromagnets to "kick" a iron "bucket" down a rail. At the end of the rail was a cushioned stop which stopped the "bucket", but the mass was free to continue. The rails were steel too.
The two copper rails run parallel to each other, you place a metal conductive projectile between the rails this completes the circuit, now you run high voltage, pulsed electricity through the rails and the electricity throws the projectile forward...
View Quote
I don't see why the rails would need to be made of copper. Also just completeing a circuit between a conductor doesn't give directed impulse to a mass. If it did my table lamp would vibrate.
the government did a lot of work on these weapons, it was the starwars project. thay found that the weapon was far too inaccurate,(because the projectile is not spin stabilized) and far too large to ever be used as a military weapon. people are still working on ways to use the railgun to fire objects into space at a cheaper cost then to launch using a rocket.
View Quote
It would also be a cheap way to get masses of strategic metals from moon colonies to earth, not to mention make a heck of a roller coaster ride here at Six Flags. If you get a projectile with enough mass going fast enough you don't really need spin due to moment of inertia. Of course you could always launch finned projectiles to solve that problem. There are several sites on the web about railguns. My nephew is 3, when he gets older, and if my sister allows it, we will make one, along with a onager, a ballista, and a trebuchet. Purely for educational purposes of course.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:38:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato: I thought that the people on this web sight would understand this.... YOUR GUNS CANT SHOOT FASTER THEN 3,300FPS
View Quote
Yes they can. It is just that at speeds in excess of 4000fps the lead is not strong enough to withstand the lateral torques due to spin and they disintegrate. Haven't you ever wondered why a .30-30 sabot, a .308 sabot, and a .30-'06 sabot all have the same muzzle velocity of about 4000fps? That is why.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:39:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By 2manytoys: Actually, it has been proven, & you don't need to travel at light speed to do it. Although light speed would really increase the time differential. Nasa scientists in the 60's used atomic clocks to prove Einstein's theory of relativity as related to time travel. They used highly accurate atomic clocks that were synchronized. One stayed on Earth, one went in orbit during mercury & appollo tests. Time passed slower for the clocks that were in orbit.Its just that with speeds we are able to acheive it takes an atomic clock to measure the small differential in time.
View Quote
so what your trying to tell me is that by taking even one step forward im moving through time? ok now I have to tell you to shut up. If you could move through time by moving at the speed of light you would have to move at the speed of light to prove it and to DO IT. If your atomic clock theory moving slower then the speed of light can pass even a small fraction through time, then by taking even one step forward your moving a very very very small fraction through time.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:40:59 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato:
Originally Posted By Fluxion: I can't remember the name of the government project but I remember reading about an experiment that proved that time travel was possible. It may have been in Stephen Hawkins "A brief history of time", I can't remember right now. I know we talked about it in AE245 and in physics when I was in college but I did read about it somewhere else. Anyway they synchronized two atomic clocks and placed on in a B-25 and flew as fast as they could for as long as they could. When they landed the clock from the B-25 was a few thousandths slower than the clock left on the ground. This was all in an effort to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity but they ended up proving his theory valid.
View Quote
Its still a theory, the speed of light has never been reached, so I don't see why you just wasted your time writing this.
View Quote
Actually time travel itself isn't a theory, it has been proven twice. Traveling at the speed of light hasn't been proven and I haven't heard of an expert physicist that thinks it is even possible. You know the formula E=mc2 (that's mc squared)? As an object approaches the speed of light the energy required increases exponentially. This has also been proven by particle accelerators many times.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:42:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 6:43:04 PM EST by m60308nato]
ntxt
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:43:52 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato: NUCLEAR FUSION AND FISSION IS AN ATOMIC EXPLOSION YOU IDIOT! imploding plutonium causes nuclear explosion. fission, splitting the molicules of uranium 235 makes a nuclear explosion.
View Quote
Umm, dude. Where did you go to school? We have nuclear reactors all over the place that are run on controlled fission reactions. They go boom pretty rarely, K19, Chernobyl, and 3 Mile Island being notable incidents. They run controlled, but sadly unsustainable, fusion reactions in Tokamak type reactors all the time.
matter-energy conversion.... let me think... the best matter to evergy conversion we have is to burn a fuel and make exaust fastest we can go so far is MACH 3
View Quote
He is talking about direct matter to energy conversion. You are talking about chemical conversion of matter from one form of a molecolue to another. Totally different. And I believe the escape velocity of a rocket exceeds mach 3.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:48:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato: so what your trying to tell me is that by taking even one step forward im moving through time? ok now I have to tell you to shut up.
View Quote
Umm, dude. By the very act of telling him to "shut the fuck up" you are indeed moving forward through time. I do it every day. I wear a watch to keep track of it. Your name isn't Kirk DeMartino is it?
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:51:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato:
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: Well if you can travel at the speed of light,you can travel through time(Proven)
View Quote
no that is not proven, that is a theory. It has never been done. the fastest we have ever made an object move was a rod of steel at 40,000FPS out of a RAILGUN.
View Quote
Like - - WRONG!!! Where are you getting your information! Various research labs have done extensive experiments involving sub-atomic particles artificially accelerated to near relativistic velocities. With sub-atomic particles, we can accelerate them to 99.9999 percent of the speed of light (POTSOL). As these particles approach the speed of light (ATSOL), we witness very real changes in their relation with time {They measured the radioactive decay} as the individual lifetimes of these particles become many times longer than what they should be if they were not traveling so fast. Also, experiments where conducted with extremely precise clocks mounted in our fastest test jets all confirm that an astronaut and a clock moving at very high speeds will see time pass more slowly than a astronaut and a clock which is completely at rest. Therefore, as a particle or person accelerates close to the speed of light, time will dilate in relation to the traveler. The particle or person will age much [i]slower,[/i] thus, they will be traveling forward in time at a different rate. This is time travel.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:59:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato: NUCLEAR FUSION AND FISSION IS AN ATOMIC EXPLOSION YOU IDIOT! imploding plutonium causes nuclear explosion. fission, splitting the molicules of uranium 235 makes a nuclear explosion.
View Quote
I specifically did not mention nuclear fission. And we are on the very real edge of controllable nuclear fusion. Don't call me an idiot. From your writings, it is very obvious that your education in physics is quite lacking. If you don't back down soon, you will clearly reveal what you don't know. Don't forget a couple of guys could flatten you with a few searches on Google and some links to nuclear research sites. Now calm down. Do a little reading. Don't YOU be the idiot.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:05:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 7:06:47 PM EST by m60308nato]
Originally Posted By poikilotrm: No. Physicists use cyclotrons to accellerate masses to near relativistic speeds all the time. Then they watch the boom when they ram the masses together head on. Sometimes I think physicists are just rednecks with degrees who want to blow shit up just to see it fly. I know I do. no shit, I bet I could make you move alot faster then 40,000FPS if I had you sit on a hydrogen bomb and blow you up, but im talking about ways we can use to make an object move and keep the person inside alive.
I was unaware of this. If you have any links I would like to see them. All the railguns I have seen personally (floor models) and all the pictures I have seen used large, capacitor fired electromagnets to "kick" a iron "bucket" down a rail. At the end of the rail was a cushioned stop which stopped the "bucket", but the mass was free to continue. The rails were steel too. http://home.insightbb.com/~jmengel4/rail/rail-intro.html this web page will tell you everything you could ever want yo know about railguns.
I don't see why the rails would need to be made of copper. Also just completeing a circuit between a conductor doesn't give directed impulse to a mass. If it did my table lamp would vibrate. the rails are copper because thay are the best conductive metal for the price, thay need to be replaced every 100round because of wear, and sometimes you melt them... you can also wind up welding your projectile to the rails when trying to fire. you wouldn't want to go with gold, i know that's the first, and best conductive metal that comes to mind, and it would most likely melt anyway..
It would also be a cheap way to get masses of strategic metals from moon colonies to earth, not to mention make a heck of a roller coaster ride here at Six Flags. If you get a projectile with enough mass going fast enough you don't really need spin due to moment of inertia. Of course you could always launch finned projectiles to solve that problem. There are several sites on the web about railguns. My nephew is 3, when he gets older, and if my sister allows it, we will make one, along with a onager, a ballista, and a trebuchet. Purely for educational purposes of course. yes people have tried saboting fin stabilized projectiles, still not accurate enough for the government, what with the 500mile range on cruse missiles
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:08:04 PM EST
Student Guide to Nuclear Physics [url]http://physics.about.com/library/student/blsgnucl.htm#level1[/url] Nuclear Fusion Basics [url]http://physics.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jet.efda.org%2Fpages%2Fcontent%2Ffusion1.html[/url] University of California at Berkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering Nuclear Fusion Section [url]http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/fusion/fusion.html[/url]
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:12:33 PM EST
Originally Posted By poikilotrm: Umm, dude. Where did you go to school? We have nuclear reactors all over the place that are run on controlled fission reactions. They go boom pretty rarely, K19, Chernobyl, and 3 Mile Island being notable incidents. They run controlled, but sadly unsustainable, fusion reactions in Tokamak type reactors all the time.
reactors just use the heat of the radioactive material to boil water, the steam turns a turbine attached to a generator. This is not nuclear fusion or fission.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:22:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 7:59:48 PM EST by poikilotrm]
Originally Posted By m60308nato: no shit, I bet I could make you move alot faster then 40,000FPS if I had you sit on a hydrogen bomb and blow you up, but im talking about ways we can use to make an object move and keep the person inside alive.
View Quote
We do move things faster than 40,000 feet per second all the time in the world of physical research and someday regularly in space travel. As far as moving people at that speed and keeping them alive, there was a thing called a Saturn V. It boosted astronauts, living ones mind you, into orbit at 25,000MPH. 25,000MPH x 5280Feet/Mile=132,000,000feet/hour 132,000,000feet/hour divided by 60minutes/hour=2,200,000feet/minute 2,200,000 feet/ minute divided by 60 seconds/minute gives 36667 feet per second or very close to the 40,000fps you were talking about and that was in the 1960s. I think we can do better now and we don't even have to build an Orion to do it.[url]www.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm[/url]
[url]http://home.insightbb.com/~jmengel4/rail/rail-intro.html[/url] this web page will tell you everything you could ever want yo know about railguns.
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:23:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato: reactors just use the heat of the radioactive material to boil water, the steam turns a turbine attached to a generator. This is not nuclear fusion or fission.
View Quote
That is EXACTLY what it is. What do you think is making the heat?
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:26:11 PM EST
Originally Posted By ron97ws6: Like - - WRONG!!! Where are you getting your information! Various research labs have done extensive experiments involving sub-atomic particles artificially accelerated to near relativistic velocities. With sub-atomic particles, we can accelerate them to 99.9999 percent of the speed of light (POTSOL). As these particles approach the speed of light (ATSOL), we witness very real changes in their relation with time {They measured the radioactive decay} as the individual lifetimes of these particles become many times longer than what they should be if they were not traveling so fast. Also, experiments where conducted with extremely precise clocks mounted in our fastest test jets all confirm that an astronaut and a clock moving at very high speeds will see time pass more slowly than a astronaut and a clock which is completely at rest. Therefore, as a particle or person accelerates close to the speed of light, time will dilate in relation to the traveler. The particle or person will age much [i]slower,[/i] thus, they will be traveling forward in time at a different rate. This is time travel.
View Quote
whoop de fuckin do, now lets see them actually make something move faster then the speed of light, and when thay do..... try moving an object with a live animal in it faster then the speed if light... then when you have an animal crushed flatter then a piece of paper by the g-force of moving forward that fast, tell me you want to be the next one to try it. and then you still move back to the problem of space dust, and rocks, comets, asteroids, all that good junk that could get in the way
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:27:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By poikilotrm:
Originally Posted By m60308nato: reactors just use the heat of the radioactive material to boil water, the steam turns a turbine attached to a generator. This is not nuclear fusion or fission.
View Quote
That is EXACTLY what it is. What do you think is making the heat?
View Quote
radiation.......... that was self explanatory
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:31:47 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato: [url]http://home.insightbb.com/~jmengel4/rail/rail-intro.html[/url] this web page will tell you everything you could ever want yo know about railguns.
View Quote
That is a linear accelerator you are talking about. It uses impedence and inductance within the rail to move the projectile which is very inefficient for a weapon compared to rapid sequentially fired electromagnets. It is a good idea for a maglev though, becuase that way the entire track is electrified.Interesting design, but yesterday's tech.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:34:49 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato: radiation.......... that was self explanatory
View Quote
And the radiation ios..? Neutrons, alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, and x rays etc released by radioactive decay, or FISSION, in this case rapid decay which takes place when large masses of radioactive mater are in close proximity. The more stuff you have decaying, together,the more rapidly it occurs. I ambeginning to think you are a very young man or someone who hasn't the sense to eduate himself before speaking.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:37:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato:
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: Well if you can travel at the speed of light,you can travel through time(Proven)
View Quote
no that is not proven, that is a theory. It has never been done. the fastest we have ever made an object move was a rod of steel at 40,000FPS out of a RAILGUN. for those of you who don't know about the railgun, you should. its a weapon that uses 2 preferably copper rails, because copper is cheap and the rails need to be replaced every 100 rounds fired. The two copper rails run parallel to each other, you place a metal conductive projectile between the rails this completes the circuit, now you run high voltage, pulsed electricity through the rails and the electricity throws the projectile forward... the government did a lot of work on these weapons, it was the starwars project. thay found that the weapon was far too inaccurate,(because the projectile is not spin stabilized) and far too large to ever be used as a military weapon. people are still working on ways to use the railgun to fire objects into space at a cheaper cost then to launch using a rocket.
View Quote
the massive partical ecceleratiors used in the search for the "god partical" moves a single partical very very fast. not sure on the speed, but im sure its a bit faster than your 40,000 fps from rail gun.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:37:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By m60308nato: whoop de fuckin do, now lets see them actually make something move faster then the speed of light, and when thay do..... try moving an object with a live animal in it faster then the speed if light... then when you have an animal crushed flatter then a piece of paper by the g-force of moving forward that fast, tell me you want to be the next one to try it.
View Quote
Nahh. It wouldn't be crushed. You can't crush a waveform in a Newtonian sense. The little bugger would be a waveform at around .998C.And the relative G force for an object at any speed, assuming it is at a steady speed, is zero, so no G force at all.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:42:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 7:44:28 PM EST by ron97ws6]
Originally Posted By m60308nato:
Originally Posted By poikilotrm: Umm, dude. Where did you go to school? We have nuclear reactors all over the place that are run on controlled fission reactions. They go boom pretty rarely, K19, Chernobyl, and 3 Mile Island being notable incidents. They run controlled, but sadly unsustainable, fusion reactions in Tokamak type reactors all the time.
reactors just use the heat of the radioactive material to boil water, the steam turns a turbine attached to a generator. This is not nuclear fusion or fission.
View Quote
[b]"This is not nuclear fusion or fission"[/b] Ok everybody, this guy is impossible. He understands NOTHING about nuclear fission. Here is a simple page on Nuclear Reactors to Generate Electricity. "How Does a Nuclear Reactor Work?" [url]http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/04-23-2001/vo17no09_how_nuclear.htm[/url] I told you m60308nato, that if you didn't calm down and do a little reading, you'd look like the idiot. This last search on Google turned up 12 [b]pages[/b] of info on [i]nuclear fission[/i] and electrical power generation! You are out of your element. Give it a rest.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:44:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By poikilotrm: And the radiation ios..? Neutrons, alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, and x rays etc released by radioactive decay, or FISSION, in this case rapid decay which takes place when large masses of radioactive mater are in close proximity. The more stuff you have decaying, together,the more rapidly it occurs. I ambeginning to think you are a very young man or someone who hasn't the sense to eduate himself before speaking.
View Quote
radioactive decay, your radioactive decay is not fission you dumbass TO HAVE FISSION YOU MUST BE SPLITTING MOLECULES
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:52:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 7:53:39 PM EST by poikilotrm]
Originally Posted By m60308nato: radioactive decay, your radioactive decay is not fission you dumbass TO HAVE FISSION YOU MUST BE SPLITTING MOLECULES
View Quote
Radioactive decay is splitting, hence the thermally energetic neutrons and alpha particles flinging about and the resultant decay products, the new elements formed in the plutonium rods or uranium rods, which are created as a result of the energy releasing splitting/decay of the parent elements, which cause the parent elements to become less capable energy producing masses as time goes by and they split more and more into more stable and less radioactive atoms. You are I assume 15 or so? I really would like to talk to you if you are an adult, since you keep cursing at me. Please post your phone number or address. Oh, and try clcking on some of the above links about nuclear power, or do a google search. Here is a link [url]www.google.com[/url] Can't wait to talk to you.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 8:02:51 PM EST
Originally Posted By poikilotrm: You are I assume 15 or so? I really would like to talk to you if you are an adult, since you keep cursing at me. Please post your phone number or address. Oh, and try clcking on some of the above links about nuclear power, or do a google search. Here is a link [url]www.google.com[/url] Can't wait to talk to you.
View Quote
I don't think he's going to follow the links, because he cannot confront the reality of basic physics. I figure either he has a mind like a steel trap, or he just likes to argue. Either way, I'm not into lost causes, at least not this late. Good Night!
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 8:11:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 8:14:12 PM EST by bastiat]
Originally Posted By m60308nato: radioactive decay, your radioactive decay is not fission you dumbass TO HAVE FISSION YOU MUST BE SPLITTING MOLECULES
View Quote
Gee, following ron97ws6's link, I see that: "The energy generated by a nuclear reactor is the result of a process known as fission. Most atoms are not fissile, but U-235, an isotope of uranium, is. Fission occurs when U-235 is bombarded by a free, low-energy neutron, splitting the atom into two major fission fragments and releasing high-energy neutrons as well as energy in the form of heat (see Figure 4)." [NI]
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 8:14:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 8:16:10 PM EST by m60308nato]
radioactive decay is the radiation breaking down, hence the name decay... it is not fission since there is no splitting of molecules, there is no fission if there is no splitting of molecules... say that a few times. see cold fusion.. actually fission you use an electrode to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen(fission) the oxygen and hydrogen can be used to turn a turbine attached to a generator to make electricity, then the hydrogen and oxygen mixture can be used as fuel. the most efficient power source on the planet just needs water and a jumpstart. last I checked thay made 5 different patents for cold fusion, but the oil companies keep buying them.... so thay can keep selling oil until thay run out, then pull out all the patents that bought up.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 8:14:53 PM EST
If a mad scientist were to, say, place a hot poker near my naked scrotum - I'm betting that I could move 250,000MPH. That is if I was greased or wearing one of those speed skating lycra dealies.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top