Re: Drives

Post #130,486 by deSitter 12/12/03 2:03:28 PM Reply	Re: Drives There is nothing to figure out, Norm - that's why it's called fiction. It's BS. -drl
Post #130,581 by orion 12/13/03 3:31:53 PM Reply	What once was fiction, can become fact. Remember when people wrote stories about using rockets to go to the moon? It turned from fiction to a fact. Star Trek had removable disks for computers, the floppy disk was born. Star Trek had communicators, and the cell phone was born. I really believe that some day, some one will figure out a way to get a FTL travel in a starship. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but one day in the future. We got plenty of ideas in fiction, now to work out the facts. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,584 by SpiceWare 12/13/03 4:28:58 PM Reply	very good point where would we be if nobody considered "what if"? Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://www.spiceware.org/cgi-bin/spa.pl?album=./Artistic%20Overpass\|Artistic Overpass]\n[link\|http://www.spiceware.org/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #130,589 by deSitter 12/13/03 5:55:06 PM Reply	We would be nowhere ..if the methods of science were abandoned, by forgetting what is known in favor of what we wish were known. -drl
Post #130,596 by orion 12/13/03 6:41:15 PM Reply	Sometimes what we know is a lie like the flat Earth fact that used to be popular. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,603 by deSitter 12/13/03 6:56:57 PM Reply	Re: Sometimes what we know is a lie That's is just a stupid, trivial thing to say, and it pisses me off. No one can be this lazy. -drl
Post #130,613 by orion 12/13/03 7:20:36 PM Reply	Prove the universe give 30 examples. This was on an Astronomy test of mine in college. Our instructor disagreed with the book and explained why most things in it were wrong. Our ignorence of the universe is showing, we don't even know how to counter the bone loss in Astronaughts yet. Would you have believed in black holes before someone caught a nearby star falling into one? There are some things we cannot see in the universe. We only percive three dimensions and often ignore time, a fourth one. How can we tell if there other dimensions if we are closed-minded? Can't see it, it does not exist. That kind of thinking could be wrong. It is not being lazy, it is keeping an open mind, and seeing if the rules are wrong. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,616 by deSitter 12/13/03 7:27:24 PM Reply	Re: Prove the universe You aren't keeping an open mind, you're impersonating a wheel of cheese. -drl
Post #130,619 by orion 12/13/03 7:39:35 PM Reply	Chedar or Swiss? :) *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,588 by deSitter 12/13/03 5:53:20 PM Reply	Nope - essential difference Some things simply require better production and technology. Going to the Moon was possible as soon as Newton wrote F = GMeMm/r^2. Cell phones and communicators were possible as soon as Maxwell proved that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon. Going faster than light is, and will always be, impossible, as impossible as adding 2+2 and getting 5. That is simply how it is. It is built into the nature of space and time, the way the integers are built into coconut trees. I find the attitude that "science is what I believe can be, rather than what is and what is not" sort of offensive. BTW I love Star Trek - I just pretend it happens in a Universe in which c=infinity. -drl
Post #130,598 by orion 12/13/03 6:44:43 PM 12/13/03 6:50:20 PM Reply	We don't know what is and what is not we can only theorize and hope we find facts and proof to back up those theories. My last instructor told me that science is all theories, nothing is a fact and that when 99.1% or more of the time you can predict something via a theory, that theory is valid. What if Einstien was wrong? He was wrong about the Quantium Theory, IIRC. Besides most of those drives use another dimension to take a shortcut, rather than exceed the speed of light. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"* Edited by orion Dec. 13, 2003, 06:50:20 PM EST Expand All History
Post #130,601 by deSitter 12/13/03 6:55:23 PM Reply	Wrong (and I really am not interested in what your "instructor" said - if he told you that he's an idiot) Progress in science is not based on wishful thinking - it's based on accumulating facts by long hard struggle. One of those facts is - given the simplest assumptions about space and time - assumptions taken from the simplest observations about the world - then space and time are related by a parameter that is either finite or not - and the only way to find out which, is to look. When you look, it turns out to be finite. There is no doubt, none whatsoever - about this. NO DOUBT. It is as real as rain. Not you, not anyone or any thing, will ever go faster than this limiting speed. And if you insist on believing that it will, then you are rejecting science and its methods, and you should not pay lip service to it ever again. You should crawl up a tree and live like the monkeys do, without science. -drl
Post #130,695 by orion 12/14/03 10:40:19 AM Reply	My Instructor has a PHD I doubt he is an idiot. One of the things they taught us in Peak Learning is to ignore the rules, as the rules can interfer with learning. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,699 by pwhysall 12/14/03 10:57:34 AM Reply	That doesn't exclude him from being an idiot, Norm. And generally, you have to know the rules in order to ignore them. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #130,700 by orion 12/14/03 11:02:38 AM Reply	Explain to me how an idiot can earn a PHD and teach a class and know the material they are teaching? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,702 by deSitter 12/14/03 11:11:49 AM Reply	Re: Explain to me George Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard! You know what his makes him? RICH! -drl
Post #130,602 by pwhysall 12/13/03 6:56:11 PM Reply	That's still wishful thinking. Norm, none of those drives exist. They don't use any dimension other than your imagination. The "science is all theories" argument is most often proffered by people who really mean "vague idea" when they say "theory". Yes, science is all theories. Do you understand just how much of what we currently know about the universe (and use - this computer, the internet, Big Macs, etc) would have to be astonishingly, tragically wrong for FTL travel to be possible? Don't make me stick the fizzy cysts on you. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #130,608 by orion 12/13/03 7:11:25 PM Reply	They don't exist, yet but they could be one day if the theory is proven factual. What if the whole world as we knew it was a lie? What if all we know is yet another "Flat Earth" theory? All I am saying is "What if?" What if Columbus believed the Flat Earth theory and never sailed over the ocean? What if Newton ignored the Apple? What if Einstien believed his teachers that he was dumb? What would science be like if people didn't ignore the rules and instead went to discover the truth? Yes believe in a Flat Earth, never sail off of it. Speed of sound, can never be broken. Never can we reach the moon. People will never fly in planes. Never wonder why things fall and hit you on the head. Believe every negative thing that people say about you. Really sick and sad world if everyone did that. Sicker and sader than it is now. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,612 by deSitter 12/13/03 7:19:44 PM Reply	Re: They don't exist, yet I swear, you make people want to jump into a volcano. You haven't thought for even 2 minutes about what I said - you just blurt out whatever comes to mind without thought or effort. You have become without any doubt the laziest, most thoughtless person I've ever encountered online. You and that other person make it seem as if St. Louis is filled with idiots. -drl
Post #130,618 by orion 12/13/03 7:38:20 PM Reply	Your thinking is limited all I was saying is "What if" not saying that it is a fact to go faster than light, just saying "What if we could?", that is all. Suggested reading: [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738205257/102-9349839-2001726?v=glance\|http://www.amazon.co...-2001726?v=glance] [link\|http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps.html\|http://www.hawking.o...ctures/warps.html] "In science fiction, space and time warps are a commonplace. They are used for rapid journeys around the galaxy, or for travel through time. But today's science fiction, is often tomorrow's science fact." Apparently Hawking agrees with me that today's science fiction is often tomorrow's science fact. Angels of a triangle are always 180 degrees, right? At one time it was thought so, until proven otherwise: However, in the last century, people began to realize that other forms of geometry were possible, in which the angles of a triangle, need not add up to a hundred and 80 degrees. Here is one of the short-cuts I talked about: Closely related to time travel, is the ability to travel rapidly from one position in space, to another. As I said earlier, Einstein showed that it would take an infinite amount of rocket power, to accelerate a space ship to beyond the speed of light. So the only way to get from one side of the galaxy to the other, in a reasonable time, would seem to be if we could warp space-time so much, that we created a little tube or wormhole. This could connect the two sides of the galaxy, and act as a short cut, to get from one to the other and back while your friends were still alive. Such wormholes have been seriously suggested, as being within the capabilities of a future civilization. But if you can travel from one side of the galaxy, to the other, in a week or two, you could go back through another wormhole, and arrive back before you set out. You could even manage to travel back in time with a single wormhole, if its two ends were moving relative to each other. Not proven yet, but proof that it is a theory. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,623 by deSitter 12/13/03 7:47:45 PM Reply	Re: Your thinking is limited And what I'm telling you, is that it is impossible for reasons that have nothing to do with particular theories - that is is built into the very nature of space and time. As to Hawking - he's referring to global solutions to general relativity employing what is called a "Euclidean analytic continuation", which is nothing but a rank speculation - but how would it be possible to explain this to you, who is too lazy to spend 2 minutes of real thought on anything? (For those who are curious, a "Euclidean analytic continuation" involves allowing time to be purely imaginary, so the metric becomes "Euclidean" (+1 +1 +1 +1), instead of the normal "Lorentzian" metric (+1 +1 +1 -1). Needless to say I think such an idea is hogwash. Time is real.) -drl
Post #130,624 by orion 12/13/03 7:51:40 PM Reply	Re: Your thinking is limited And what I'm telling you, is that it is impossible for reasons that have nothing to do with particular theories - that is is built into the very nature of space and time. What are those natures of space and time that make distant space travel impossible? Is it proven or more theories? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,629 by deSitter 12/13/03 8:12:53 PM Reply	Re: Your thinking is limited I'll just tell you the results. 1) I can get anywhere in the Universe as fast as I like, measured by my watch, if I have enough energy at my disposal. 2) I'm off to the Andromeda galaxy! I arrive in 2 weeks... ....two weeks later.... 3) Oh this is lovely. But I gotta get back. Can't wait to have a beer with my homies... 4) Where the frick is Earth? It's moved a lot. (long search ensues...) 5) Good old earth! - hey the continents look different - why is there an ocean covering Florida now? And where are the icecaps? And for that matter where is New York? Where are all the people? Dead and gone! Evovled into something else! Not only are all my buds and family long gone, my species is extinct. 6) Oh shit, 4 million years have passed in the month that I was away! All my homies are long dead! My country is dead! The geography of my planet isn't even the same! So as long as you are willing to cut all ties with home, you can go whereever you want. But the very nature of space and time guarantee the "time dilation" effect, and there is no way around it. There are no warps, there are no holes to jump into, there are no magic space bullets. If you go far away, it's goingt to take a long, long time on a clock on the wall of the place you left, no matter how short it may seem as measured by your watch. -drl
Post #130,633 by orion 12/13/03 8:24:39 PM Reply	Time is relative I understand that. What I don't understand is why alternative ways of space travel are proven impossible? Like cutting through another dimension. Can you prove that other dimensions do not exist? If so you just proved that there is no Heaven or Hell and theology is all shot up. :) How does that affect your religious views? Is it impossible to travel outside of time and space, where time and space have no effect? Thus no time dilation effect. Is it impossible to create a wormhole, one end in 2003, and the other in the next galaxy 4 million years later and pass through it? Then come back to 2003? Theories mind you, not facts. But can you disprove them? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,640 by deSitter 12/13/03 9:15:08 PM Reply	Re: Time is relative I gave the proof - it's just high-school algebra combined with simple assumptions, that, if not true, would land us in a world where acid would be needed to find the bathroom, and so are ruled out because our local experience is otherwise. In other words we see here physics in action - the assumptions are not dreamed up, they are based on what we observe. The assumption is a translation into math of an observed fact. Space travel or not, it is extremely remarkable that something as complex as simultaneity boils down to a single number that is the same everywhere. In hindsight, we can see that its "real" meaning is a universal rate rather than a velocity per se. C is the rate at which matter is experienced. It should be noted that the word causality hasn't been mentioned yet. That is extra, so C is even simpler than the idea of cause and effect. -drl
Post #130,648 by orion 12/13/03 9:54:02 PM Reply	So this proof proves that other dimensions do not exist? I must have missed that part. So either C is finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. What we have seen of it is finite. This book [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738205257/102-9349839-2001726?v=glance\|http://www.amazon.co...-2001726?v=glance] says it is not constant. Of course he might be right: [link\|http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm\|http://www.scienceda.../991005114024.htm] [link\|http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s347215.htm\|http://www.abc.net.a...eline/s347215.htm] [link\|http://www.kottke.org/02/08/speed-light-not-constant\|http://www.kottke.or...ight-not-constant] [link\|http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html\|http://www.space.com...nging_010815.html] Even if C is not infinite, could it be possible to take a shortcut to another dimension to shorten the time needed to take the trip? All you've proven, and based on assumptions, is that C is not infinite. This does not disprove the existence of other dimensions to circumvent time-space through. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,651 by deSitter 12/13/03 10:04:48 PM Reply	Re: So this proof Even if there were "other dimensions", so what? The dimensions that need to take a shower are space and time. BTW there are other dimensions, they are called matter and antimatter. Doesn't change the need to take a shower. -drl
Post #130,696 by orion 12/14/03 10:52:34 AM Reply	Other dimensions Yes there is a theory that says there is an antimatter universe, just because we cannot see it does not mean it does not exist. An extra dimension in space could help us move in 3D space by using 4D or even 5D space to find a shortcut between two points in 3D space. I don not understand your need for time and space to take a shower, that term has no meaning to me. What does take a shower mean in a scientific or technical term anyway? I only assume that it means time and space get screwed up somehow and need to be corrected. If the 4D or 5D dimension of space is still relative to time, there should not be an issue unless there is a gravity difference in the other dimension or you get close to or travel at the speed of light. You would also need good navigation to make sure that you come out of the other dimesion and do not end up inside of a planet, star, or asteroid, etc. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,703 by deSitter 12/14/03 11:17:54 AM Reply	Re: Other dimensions This isn't how it works, that is, the world has a "nearness" quality. Even if somehow extra dimensions are allowed, you still have a footprint in the usual ones, and that can't just reappaer somewhere else without violating the "nearness" law - to go from A to B you must pass through the intervening space and time between A and B, regardless of what is going on in "other dimensions". Antimatter not interacting with matter, looks exactly like matter. Nothing makes it "invisible". -drl
Post #130,726 by orion 12/14/03 6:45:35 PM Reply	Unless you moved out of the sphere of the 3rd dimension Imagine a 2D space, you move a rectangle out of it into 3D space. You move the rectangle above the plane it was on, and it appears to other rectangles that it vanished. It is now on another plane inside of 3D space, which intersects with the first plane in another part, and the rectangle appears on the other side of the first plane by travelling through a second plane in 3D space that is warped to the other side of the first plane, but has a much shorter path to travel. Now move it up a dimension, you leave the 3D cube/sphere into a 4D Tesseract and go into the next Cube/Sphere that intersects with the first cube/sphere in a different location. The small cube appears to other cubes to vanish on one side and reappear on the other side. By moving from cube to cube, it can vanish, find a shortcut, and reappear. Imagine it is a game of Chutes and Ladders. :) Carl Sagan explained it in the Cosmos series, but I see it has fallen off the PBS.org site. It was an Apple passing through a 2D space, making it look like a shapeshifter and vanishing at the end. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #130,941 by Ashton 12/16/03 3:09:58 AM Reply	Language and math are endless fun, no? But the idea of 'science' includes several requirements which militate against overactive imaginations and the infiinite number of what-if?s these can generate, even running on empty. 'Science' -in brief- is not required to disprove legions of (or a one of) fanciful musings: the method is to devise experiments as may lend credence to a hypothesis (or may render it moot). If you cannot devise such an experiment, accomplish same - and others reproduce your work: you haven't contributed an iota to 'science'; only to - Wishful Thinking. 5\ufffd per kilo. Then too.. mindless dismissal of 'science-in-words' as merely 'theory' and thus meaningless re the environment in which our bodies find themselves - violates another idea of A. Einstein: Things should be made as simple as possible. But not simpler. As to 21st Century Nintendo-science - - Ashton (as to your example - I expect many here have read and enjoyed Flatland. Norman - it was a story. It was imaginary. (A tesseract is an invention of the human nervous system, as is all math a similar contrivance of that peculiar nervous system and the metaphors it generates - not one of which IS 'Reality'.))
Post #130,996 by orion 12/16/03 12:21:44 PM Reply	The point you have missed is that I never said it was reality and I asked desitter to prove that other dimensions do not exist. He was not able to prove that other dimensions did not exist. The only thing that he proved, so to speak, was that C was finite, based on assumptions and experience. All I have been saying is "What if?" all along. Some people apparently cannot stand people who challange the imagination to think of things that other people might think of as impossible. Case in point the "Flat Earth" theory that almost 99.9% of the planet believed in except for a few Vikings and Columbus. Oh don't sail too far, or you'll fall off the edge of the world! At the time they belived in their science as much as we belive in our modern science. They apparently were wrong and didn't know it. How do we know if there is another Flat Earth theory that we hold as true, but we could be mistaken in? At one time we calculated the age of the universe, and then found a way to figure out the age of stars. Found that some stars were older than the universe was supposed to be, and had to make corrections. Science is not perfect, we are learning new things each day. Maybe one day someone will prove one of the dimensional theories. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,008 by deSitter 12/16/03 12:49:02 PM Reply	Re: The point you have missed What? I gave up on this thread when you failed to see what I was saying, time and again. I know you can move a "rectangle" off the plane into three dimensions. I explicitly stated that continuity and locality apply to the part that is fixed in 4-d - the real object - you're confusing a coordinate system for the real object. A thing is not a rectangular subset of a coordinate system. -drl
Post #131,079 by orion 12/16/03 7:52:16 PM Reply	I usually ignore things that don't make sense what you had posted did not make one bit of sense to me, based on things that I read about or learned from somewhere else. Perhaps if you were to provide a link to a creadible source that can explain it without using such terms as "take a shower" which are confusing anyway, maybe I'll understand it better? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,084 by deSitter 12/16/03 8:12:44 PM Reply	make sense out of things you can't ignore -drl
Post #131,193 by boxley 12/17/03 11:12:10 AM Reply	lets review taking a shower turn on water, adjust temerature, step under the water and start washing and rinsing. This occupies both time and space and the world of physics. With extra dimensions that you were thinking of wont get your ass clean before the water turns on. You cant step under the water without getting your exterior wet and you will yelp if the water is too hot or too cold. That is the point doc was trying to make. thanx, bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #131,266 by orion 12/17/03 5:04:54 PM Reply	Still confused what changes the temp of the water? Why is there a need to take a shower, what gets us dirty? Why isn't there a shower in other dimensions? How come moving off a 2D to a 3D dimension doesn't require something to take a shower? What is the "dirt" made out of, and why is it so bad? Still I have not seen any proof from anyone on the need to take a shower, or whatever. What theories, or facts is this based on? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,269 by deSitter 12/17/03 5:20:30 PM Reply	Re: Still confused The point is Norm, things in the real world occupy all the "dimensions" that God allows. Right now I can just assign coordinates for extra dimensions to everything, and call it higher dimensions - but they would have no physical meaning. The real dimensions are always present in the thing itself. -drl
Post #131,306 by orion 12/17/03 10:43:17 PM Reply	Funny that you mention God If everything occupies all the dimensions that God created/allowed, that includes Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. How come we cannot see those dimesions as well? Here is an explination of the fourth dimension: [link\|http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/math/fdiint.htm\|http://www.hypermath...c/math/fdiint.htm] It does not mention having to take a shower. Apparently we may be living in four dimesions: [link\|http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/fourth.html\|http://www.fractalwi...isdom/fourth.html] How about Anti-deSitter space? ;) [link\|http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/terning/Physics/extradim.html\|http://t8web.lanl.go...ics/extradim.html] Warped extra dimensions The discussion so far assumes that the extra dimensions are flat or at least weakly curved, but another startling possibility was suggested by Randall and Sundrum. They studied an extra dimension that was strongly curved (or "warped") by a large negative cosmological constant. (This type of space is known in the literature as an anti-de Sitter (AdS) space, since de Sitter studied a universe with a positive cosmological constant.) They found models where the effective four dimensional (4D) cosmological constant was zero, and where the massless 4D graviton mode was localized on a brane at one end of the finite (or semi-infinite) extra dimension. Essentially the equation for the massless graviton mode is the precise analog of a Schrodinger equation with a binding potential. This provided a new way to make gravity much weaker than the weak interactions; if we happen to live on a brane where the graviton is not localized, then its wavefunction on our brane can be exponentially suppressed. Again the problem of understanding the hierarchy of Planck and weak scales is translated into understanding the size of the extra dimension. Of the many theories on extra dimesions that I have read, I have not encounted anything about having to take a shower. Nor have you shown me any theories or proof that a shower needs to be taken. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,291 by boxley 12/17/03 8:32:08 PM Reply	Okay you asked for it :-) try not showering for a week or two until your wife serves proof on your smelly behind, that would be empirical evidence. couldnt resist, thanx, bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #131,308 by orion 12/17/03 10:45:12 PM Reply	Still doesn't answer my questions and it is a poor anology as the human body creates its own dirt via sweat and oils. Does time/space also sweat and produce oils that need to be washed off? If so, what is thw water of the shower that washes them off? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,311 by boxley 12/17/03 11:03:35 PM Reply	stopped showering for 2 weeks and find out physics is about observing and measuring. If you quit showering for two weeks the physical world will observe and measure you and you can log the events. Unknown dimensions are not physics because if you can neither observe or measure that moves the discussion to religion and faith. You can worship that other dimensions exist and have faith that they are there but physics physical science must be observable and measurable. thanx, bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #131,327 by orion 12/18/03 7:54:14 AM Reply	Observable and measurable I guess that rules out dark matter because you cannot observe it and measure it. Yet people still have theories about it, and can show some gravity effects that it might exist out there. Can't see a black hole either unless it is taking something inside of it. Does not mean they do not exist. I like it how you and deSitter can just avoid answering my questions. I guess they will never be answered? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,328 by pwhysall 12/18/03 8:06:19 AM Reply	Mu Question cannot be answered as posed. Some things cannot be reduced to simple terms that you will understand. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #131,395 by orion 12/18/03 2:10:22 PM Reply	More like they don't want to answer the questions and are avoiding them. Then teach me the complex terms, if they cannot be made into simple terms. I wasn't the one using a shower example. Tell me exactly what it is, and explain to me what those complex terms mean. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,401 by deSitter 12/18/03 3:05:01 PM Reply	Re: More like Dark matter is a stop-gap to account for the incomplete theory of gravity. When the correct theory of gravity is widely known, the need for dark matter will go away. In fact, this is a commonplace in science - a matter of fact that is subject to interpretation. For example - at one time it was believed by people that time was absolute, and that the electron had to shrink in the direction of motion by a factor L' = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) L Now that the electron behaved this way is a fact - but this theory did not make internal sense. The physical hypotheses involved raised more questions than they answered. Then along came Einstein, showed that time was not absolute, and that this contraction was merely an effect of perspective in 4-d - that the idea of length is dependent on two measurements at different places, and in general, at different times - and so length in itself has no meaning for a moving object, only for a stationary one. The facts were the same, but the interpretation was completely different, and in the new theory, the interpretation was simple and direct and involved no further unnecessary hypotheses. Whenever the facts seem to be tripping over the theory, the theory probably needs modification. In the case of dark matter, the gravity equations are Gmn = -8pi Tmn Tmn represents matter, and Gmn the curvature of spacetime. In order to produce sufficient curvature, you need sufficient matter on the right. Dark matter is backward reasoning - I assume I have such and such curvature, then go hunting for the Tmn of matter on the right that will make it so. Of course, this is completely wrong-headed. What is far more likely is that this gravitational theory itself only holds in weak matter, small scale conditions, and that when the corrected form of gravitation is found, the need for extra Tmns will go away. The facts will be the same, but the interpretation will be completely different. Now do you get it? -drl
Post #131,419 by orion 12/18/03 4:08:45 PM 12/18/03 4:17:49 PM Reply	Somewhat and it sort of proves my point that some theories can be wrong, despite seeming to be the truth to some people. Not an absolute truth, and some pieces of the puzel don't quite seem to fit. Much like the reason to take a shower in an extra dimesion does not make sense to me, yet. In the case of dark matter, the gravity equations are Gmn = -8pi Tmn Tmn represents matter, and Gmn the curvature of spacetime. In order to produce sufficient curvature, you need sufficient matter on the right. Dark matter is backward reasoning - I assume I have such and such curvature, then go hunting for the Tmn of matter on the right that will make it so. Of course, this is completely wrong-headed. What is far more likely is that this gravitational theory itself only holds in weak matter, small scale conditions, and that when the corrected form of gravitation is found, the need for extra Tmns will go away. The facts will be the same, but the interpretation will be completely different. It seems like there is something missing in that formula, perhaps gravity and distance, let's get back to basics. Newtonian formula for gravity is: g = G(m/r^2) Where g is the acceleration of gravity, G is the gravitational constant 6.6720∙10-11, m is the mass, and r is the distance to the center of gravity. It would seem a logical assumption that the curve of spacetime differs on the distance from the center of gravity of the object. I am using a Relativity connection between the curve of spacetime and gravity. The further away, the weaker the curve. Somehow the distance to the center of gravity has to be figured into the formula, also perhaps the distance of the spacetime curve, and gravity itself. Otherwise it makes no logical sense to me. Gravity between two objects according to Newtonian Physics is: Fg = (G * Ma * Mb) / r^2 Fg is the force of gravity, G is the gravitational constant, Ma is mass of object A, Mb is mass of object B, and r is the distance between the two objects. Once again distance works into the formula. I learned this from High School Physics, got an A out of the class. More info on Dark Matter: [link\|http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/darkmatter.html\|http://csep10.phys.u...e/darkmatter.html] [link\|http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/r/e/redingtn/www/netadv/dkmatter.html\|http://web.mit.edu/a...adv/dkmatter.html] [link\|http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/dark_matter.html\|http://imagine.gsfc..../dark_matter.html] Of course this all is nice and well, but avoids answering my questions on having to take a shower in the other dimension. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"* Edited by orion Dec. 18, 2003, 04:17:49 PM EST Expand All History
Post #131,421 by deSitter 12/18/03 4:16:34 PM Reply	Internet effect? You keep linking these stupid things off the Net - I'm sitting here giving you first-hand information and all you can do is repeat what you do not understand, make no effort to understand, and then supply links to "the truth". It's completely hopeless. You are not willing to work. You are the laziest person known to me. Don't bother posting any more to this thread. Don't bother with dimensions or science, you are too lazy to get beyond square 1. The Internet has made the world even more stupid than it was before. It is a lot of soil covering a few truths - but people aren't digging for those truths, they are adding more dirt to bury them deeper. -drl
Post #131,423 by orion 12/18/03 4:23:10 PM 12/18/03 4:24:31 PM Reply	You mean NASA is wrong? That was one of the links I cited. If NASA is wrong, we are wasting our tax dollars supporting them. :) All I have done is uncover theories and evidence that has shown you something different or shows your thinking is wrong. You are not making one bit of sense to me. Square 1 might as well be a barrel of fish, the way you explain it. I gave you Newton's formulas and you call me wrong? I was willing to work with them. I suppose now you are going to say that Newton is wrong, and that gravity does not work that way? I asked you to cite your sources, and you've given me nothing. I've asked you to provide proof and answer my questions, and yet you are unable to. I have cited my sources, why can't you cite yours? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"* Edited by orion Dec. 18, 2003, 04:24:31 PM EST Expand All History
Post #131,431 by deSitter 12/18/03 5:51:39 PM Reply	What is sacred about NASA? They publish sensations to generate funding, just like the universities do. Why did you put up Newtonian gravity? That comes out of the Einstein theory as a low-order approximation. If you don't make an effort to understand this most basic fact, what progress can you make with the rest? -drl
Post #131,449 by orion 12/18/03 8:16:30 PM Reply	Newtonian gravity I posted it as a back to basics sort of thing because I learned it in High School Phsysics. In order to learn the more complex things, we need to start out simple and work our way up. No way can I go from High School Physics to Graduate Level Physics without learning the steps that got us that far. It is like me trying to teach Accountants how to program in Visual BASIC so they can write billing formulas, and then all I do is show them the completed EXE or DLL file and then do a memory dump of it. Then I call them all lazy because they don't understand what I am talking about. Then one of them brings up a few Internet links on VB, and I call them stupid for doing so. Then one of them gets a book on Microsoft BASIC for 8-bit computers to learn the Syntax, and I tell them it is the wrong way to learn. I tell them if they don't make the effort to learn the most basic facts about the language, what progress can they make with the rest? See how wrong I am in that example, and maybe you can see how wrong you are in this example. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,451 by deSitter 12/18/03 8:44:05 PM Reply	Re: Newtonian gravity Ok, well I'm telling you now, the Newtonian theory is the same as the Einstein one when c->infinity and fields are very weak. The Einstein theory has a 10-component thing called the "metric", and in the low-order limit the only one that is important after a lot of simplification is the g44 term, which amounts to the Newtonian potential. This in fact was the first thing Einstein did to show that his new theory would reproduce the results of the old one - and that's the key point - all the spacecraft ever launched have reached their destinations with Newtonian gravity, because in interplanetary space, where the gravitational field is very weak, and because the ships are going very slowly compared to light, you can replace the complicated 10 functions in the metric to the single Newtonian gravitational potential. All real theories of physics have this nesting quality - the old theory is not "overthrown" or "invalidated", it gets incorporated as a low-order limit of the new theory in case certain things happen. Sorry, I assumed you knew the general outline of the theory of gravity. -drl
Post #131,906 by orion 12/22/03 5:34:51 PM Reply	As I said before I only have High School level Physics knowledge. Not college level. We hardly touched any of Einstien's work except for E=MC^2. I'd like to learn more, but you are mostly going over my head and not making sense to me. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #132,715 by ben_tilly 12/30/03 1:49:09 AM Reply	Hopefully at your level Newton's theory may not be true, but it has to be at least a good approximation. If it wasn't then it wouldn't have stood up to observation for so many centuries. Therefore any viable replacement must explain not only previous facts, but also why Newton's theory seemed to hold. In the case of Einstein's theory, in the case of weak gravitational fields and things moving much slower than the speed of light, most of the factors in the theory become very small and drop out. What is left over is Newton's theory. And, of course, the measurements which tested Newton's theory were things in our Solar System, which are in relatively small gravitational fields, and which move slowly (compared to light). An example of how close Newton's theories are is that the orbit of Mercury turns out to precess an extra 43 arc-seconds a century. That is a third of a percent of the way around a circle. In a century. Just to give a sense of how science has to work, even decades after there was apparently general consensus on the measurement and its meaning, it was still open to further clarification. See [link\|http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/mercury_orbit.html\|http://math.ucr.edu/...ercury_orbit.html] which talks about the measurement of the Sun's oblateness and how that might affect this result. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #132,760 by orion 12/30/03 10:01:16 AM Reply	Now that is what I wanted to see a post that explained something I could understand, and then a link to cite it or back it up. Thanks. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #132,792 by deSitter 12/30/03 1:42:55 PM Reply	"If its on the Internet, it must be true!" And piss on you too. -drl
Post #132,822 by orion 12/30/03 3:12:57 PM Reply	All I wanted was a reference or citation it could have been from a book, that I could check out, or a web site, etc. That is the first thing they teach you in college, to use references and cite them in your papers. Happy New Year to you too. Hope the leg gets better. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #132,825 by deSitter 12/30/03 3:20:53 PM Reply	Bull You wanted an excuse not to think about what I said, because you are lazy and self-indulgent. You are too chicken-shit to flame me directly so you took the first chance to do it sideways. You are a poster child for modern chemical psychiatry and its effectiveness. -drl
Post #132,836 by orion 12/30/03 3:51:11 PM Reply	Why did I think about what Ben said? Maybe because he was able to explain it in a way I could understand it, and provided a reference for me to read to learn more about it. That in itself shows that I am not lazy. I just could not grok what you where posting. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #132,867 by ben_tilly 12/30/03 6:12:38 PM Reply	You are both right Norm is right that the way that I put things had a lot to do with why he understood it. I am confident of this since I thought carefully about how I put things when I said them. Ross is right that if Noem really tried to understand what you said, then he could have reached the same basic understanding a while ago. What this would have taken is a willingness to accept that Ross knows what he is talking about, and the willingness to skim what was said for the sense of it, skipping details that were too advanced. For instance Ross' explanation used the word metric. Norm would have had to ignore that. A little research on his part wouldn't have helped. I challenge anyone to find a simple definition of a metric that anyone with a highschool education should find clear. I know what it is, and I don't think that I can explain it reliably without having feedback on what part of my explanation has and has not registered. Certainly the usual [link\|http://www.npac.syr.edu/projects/bbh/INTRO/section3_3.html\|attempts] at a layman's explanation do little except confuse laymen in possibly amusing ways. A further point of obvious frustration for Ross is Norm's unwillingness to accept the limitations of his own understanding. For instance no number of invocations of the fact that Norm got an A in highschool physics will address the fact that we are talking about material that is well beyond highschool physics. E=mc^2 is all well and dandy, but it isn't anywhere close to the right starting place. And as much as it is tempting to think that science is just free to toss away any theory and reinvent at will, anyone who knows science knows that it does not really work that way. Fiction can casually reinvent basic scientific principles, but science has to base its rules on concrete observations that take real work to understand and aquire. So you are both right. And are both really frustrating each other. Why not take a break? Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #132,882 by orion 12/30/03 7:43:07 PM Reply	I agree, end of discussion let's make a New Year's Resolution not to talk about it again. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,432 by admin 12/18/03 5:52:47 PM Reply	Newton was wrong. That's what relativity is all about. Newton's equations are useful only as an approximation. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #131,427 by ben_tilly 12/18/03 5:27:51 PM Reply	You're wrong about dark matter Dark matter is a stop-gap to account for the incomplete theory of gravity. When the correct theory of gravity is widely known, the need for dark matter will go away. No. Dark matter is matter that isn't putting out a lot of light and so is hard to spot and account for. There is no question that dark matter is out there, heck we are standing on some right now, and no amount of knowledge about gravity will ever change that. Some of it we can account for. For instance we can measure how many neutrinos we spot hitting us, and subtract out the ones that might be from the Sun, and get an idea of the density of neutrinos out there. Also we can estimate the amounts of normal matter in our galaxy because we have a pretty good idea of the structure of the local galaxy and we can see from speeds and radius of curvature what the acceleration should be, and then estimate how much weight has to be there that we can't see. But a lot of forms of dark matter we don't know about. How empty is it, really, between the galaxies? Are there exotic types of dark matter that we haven't accounted for? Now you're right that better theories would limit how much speculation about dark matter goes on because people want to reach certain magical numbers that fit specific cosmological theories. It is also obvious that our current theories will some day seem as ludicrous as we view the comet theories put forth by Newton's successor. (Note that I don't include the flat earth theory that Norm keeps blathering about because I know enough history to know that nobody believed that in Columbus' day - in fact the premise on which Columbus sailed was just plain wrong.) But we know that dark matter really is out there, even though we can't see it. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #131,430 by deSitter 12/18/03 5:48:43 PM Reply	Re: You're wrong about dark matter I don't mean "unseen" or "unaccounted for" - I mean "exotic" dark matter, matter that doesn't show up other than in cosmological speculations (superpartners that don't exist, special open-ended strings that don't exist, etc.) IOW I don't doubt that the observations are interesting, just that the interpretation is strangely non-scientific. And in any case, there is always Markarian 205 hanging above. Non-recessional redshift would change everything, but everyone is convinced it can't happen on a local level. Needless to say, intepretation of redshifts is critical to rotation studies. -drl
Post #131,459 by boxley 12/18/03 11:22:03 PM Reply	dark matter is to physicists what the ethers were to bacteria. They know something is there but put a catchall into describing the symtoms. thanx, bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #131,462 by deSitter 12/18/03 11:34:49 PM Reply	Re: dark matter is to physicists That's accurate, but DM is more like the homuncular idea of birth. -drl
Post #131,338 by boxley 12/18/03 9:39:04 AM Reply	can show some gravity effect== observable stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #131,378 by Arkadiy 12/18/03 12:45:38 PM Reply	ICLRPD:Why isn't there a shower in other dimensions? (new thread) Created as new thread #131377 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=131377\|ICLRPD:Why isn't there a shower in other dimensions?] -- "It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)" -- James Lileks
Post #131,009 by deSitter 12/16/03 12:51:10 PM Reply	Another point Imagining how the world appears in the 4-dimensions that we are sure of is a hell of a lot more difficult, and requires a great deal more imagination (coupled to something called "work" that is beyond you), than some stupid fantasy about "other dimensions". -drl
Post #131,005 by a6l6e6x 12/16/03 12:45:16 PM Reply	Are you denying the existence of imaginary numbers? ;) Alex A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true. -- Demosthenes, Greek orator (384-322 BCE)
Post #131,325 by Ashton 12/18/03 6:17:19 AM Reply	Nah.. he's imagining the number of existences.
Post #130,620 by Arkadiy 12/13/03 7:41:51 PM Reply	Are other things impossible too? For example, does Newton's third law precludes us from ever controlling gravity? If we learn how to do that, drives based on it will violate 3rd law. Also, could you explain to a non-phisycist (and non-matematician) what part of contemporary physics makes it certain that we will never travel faster than light? And how it is asserted? -- "There's nothing more nervous than a million dollars. It does not speak French, it does not speak English, it does not speak German and it moves very fast." -- Jean Chretien
Post #130,627 by deSitter 12/13/03 8:06:22 PM Reply	Re: Are other things impossible too? Of course no one can say how technology will evolve - it may very well be possible to manipulate gravity. A lot of things about gravity are poorly understood. Here is a sci.physics.research post where the derivation of the Lorentz transformation is given, based only on the simplest possible assumptions of isotropy and homogeneity: \n From: Danny Ross Lunsford (mail)\nSubject: Re: Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity \n\n Newsgroups: sci.physics.research\nDate: 2001-12-22 09:38:07 PST \n\nBrian J Flanagan wrote:\n\n> "Danny Ross Lunsford" wrote:\n> \n>>Relativity theory is independent of the nature of particular forces.\n> \n> I'm not sure what you mean by "independent", here. Surely the special\n> theory has much to do with EM (in re: the constancy of c), just as the\n> general theory has much to do with gravitation?\n\nNot at all. In fact the framework of relativity is derives from a \ngroup-theoretic analysis based on very basic and simple assumptions about \nspace, time, and motion, taken from experience. The conclusion is that the \nallowed transformations depend on parameter with the dimensions of a \nvelocity that is either finite or not. In the real world, it turns out to \nbe finite. Of course, it is c. That light goes at this speed is incidental \nto the analysis, which would still be correct if light went at some other \nspeed. Light happens to go at c because the photon is massless.\n\nTo give this derivation, we assume\n\n1) The allowable transformations are linear between frames in uniform \nrelative motion, so that they depend on the relative (vectorial) velocity V\n\n2) That time can enter into the transformations in an essential way, that \nis we do not assume t' = t.\n\n3) That space and time are isotropic, that is, time flows evenly and there \nare no preferred directions.\n\nSpatial isotropy eliminates the directional character of V and so we can \nconcentrate on the simple case of one spatial dimension.\n\nTemporal isotropy implies that what is true of frame A in relation to frame \nB for V, is true of frame B in relation to frame A for -V.\n\nNow, writing\n\nx' = a(V) x + b(V) t\nt' = c(V) x + d(V) t\n\nx = a(-V) x' + b(-V) t'\nt = c(-V) x' + d(-V) t'\n\nso\n\na(V) a(-V) + b(-V) c(V) = 1\nd(V) d(-V) + b(V) c(-V) = 1\na(-V) b(V) + b(-V) d(V) = 0\na(V) c(-V) + c(V) d(-V) = 0\n\nand of course we can replace V -> -V and these still hold. So\n\na(V) b(-V) + b(V) d(-V) = 0\na(V) c(-V) + c(V) d(-V) = 0\n\nso b(V) = c(V).\n\nNow\n\na(V) a(-V) + b(V) b(-V) = 1\na(V) b(-V) + b(V) d(-V) = 0\n\nthus\n\nb(V) [ b(-V)^2 - a(-V)d(-V) ] = b(-V)\n\nand this also holds for V -> -V, which implies either\n\na(V) d(V) - b(V)^2 = 1, b(V) = -b(-V)\n\na(V) d(V) - b(V)^2 = -1, b(V) = b(-V)\n\nThe latter is ruled out by letting V=0 in which case\n\nx = x'\nt = t'\n\nWe can solve the equations now with\n\na(V) = d(V) = a(-V) = d(-V)\n\nand so\n\na(V)^2 - b(V)^2 = 1\n\nand \n\na(0) = 1, b(0) = 0\n\nThe origin x=0, which moves at speed V in the other frame, transforms as\n\nx' = b(V) t\nt' = a(V) t\n\nso\n\ndx'/dt' = V = b(V)/a(V)\n\nso\n\na(V) = 1 / sqrt(1 - V^2)\nb(V) = V / sqrt(1 - V^2)\n\nFinally we dimensionalize time vs. space and replace\n\nV -> V/C\nt -> Ct\n\nand write\n\nx' = 1/sqrt(1 - (V/C)^2) ( x + (V/C) Ct )\n\nCt' = 1/sqrt(1 - (V/C)^2) ( Ct + (V/C) x )\n\nIf we let C go to infinity,\n\nx' = x + Vt\nt' = t\n\nSo either C is finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite.\n\nOf course, historically relativity emerged from the contradictions in \nelectron theory implied by the tacit, wrong assumptions about the nature of \nsimultaneity.\n\n-drl\n\n Implicit in this is the assumption of homogeneity, which I should have stated. (All points are equivalent - doesn't matter if you're here or there.) -drl
Post #140,256 by Arkadiy 2/6/04 10:47:19 AM Reply	Wow. I have finally been able to follow through on this. I'd have to return a few times, but I get the "why not" part, for some definition of get. I will have to go through this again looking at how assumptions are used... -- Select [link\|http://www.glumbert.com/pictures/Default.asp?index=30\|here].
Post #130,631 by boxley 12/13/03 8:18:08 PM Reply	there is 3 ways to defeat gravity gravity is a wave. There is two physical ways to defeat it and one metaphysical way. 1. provide a counter wave locally stronger than gravity. That is escape velocity. 2. Find an object or construct that is impervious to the wave so the gravitational effects flow around but do not affect the object. 3. Gravity is an artificial construct that your brain uses to maneuver in physical space, just ignore it. thanx, bill "We must face the fact that there is not a single country in the world that measures up to the lofty moral and social standards that are the hallmark of the U.S.A.: even Canada is delinquent and deserves a whiff of grape. There is not a single country in the world which, like the U.S., reeks of democracy and "human rights," and is free of crime and murder and hate thoughts and undemocratic deeds\ufffd. And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards, \ufffd I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World!" Murray N. Rothbard questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]

Welcome to IWETHEY!