I don't want to talk for him, but ex director of CNRS (Jean-Pierre Petit) jp-petit.org explains that universe could be formed by two time pannels from the big bang (see his exact mathematical interpretation on his website). Each panels got opposite sign for the mass, and cannot interfer with each other, other than by gravitation. But since a negative mass would repulse positive mass, this could easilly explain the precence of such a big "nothing" (for us). This would divert light coming from behind, and we would not see this negative mass (maybe a huge galaxy). This theory also explains in part the missing matter.
Following the first Sandia test (z-machine), Jean-Pierre Petit explains that it could be used as in a automobile motor : successive fusion. With the temperature reached, it could allow many kind of fusion wich are absolutly not polluting. You can see his presentation at : "http://www.jp-petit.org/science/Z-machine/machine s_MHD/machines_MHD_bases.htm#course_armements".
He also talks about the possible military usage, wich would allow any country to get a nuclear weapon...
You can translate his page via google translate, french to english.
Quantum theory already predicts instant creation of matter for a very small amount of time from nothing. Universe simply got create as a quantum fluctuation where time before "universe" didn't exists, so the normally very small amount of time that matter can be created could then be infinite since time means nothing before universe. And then, quantum theory stills apply inside the newly created universe.
God (if...) didn't create universe : he create rules.
Jean-Pierre Petit is a French scientist, retired member of the CNRS, which have been banned because he ask for truth : his detractors only wants to be anonymous. He found who they were, and for that get banned for life by kiddy-know-everything-admins. Go see for yourselfs how a little group of admin can change the neutrality of the site.
** the International System unit of time is the second. Minutes, hours, days, weeks, and months are ***NOT*** metric units **
But they are defined in the ISO8601 standard.
Exactly, Tesla did it 100 years ago, and over more than a km distance! But people don't know that guy. Tesla coil, radio transmission, AC electricity etc.
The only thing new is the usage, little scale.
I think I need to explain the difference between a net production of co2 (petroleum) and a normal production of c02 : the carbon cycle. Let me resume it. If you burn vegetable (biodiesel, biofuel etc), you don't have a net production of c02. Yeah sure you have co2 produced, but it will be reinserted in vegetation, since you took that biofuel by cutting some vegetation. You also breathe, it gives you co2, but vegetable convert it back to o2 and carbon.
On the opposite, burning petroleum means a net creation of co2 wich will take million of years to go back to it's original form ; it means a net production of c02 wich remains in our atmosphere. Even if scientists argue that petroleum is the cause of global warming, I assume it's reasonnable to think that petroleum produce co2 remaining in atmosphere, and is probably causing something. In what proportion? I don't know, but I don't like irreversible modification to the earth!
I hope you see that there is a major difference now.
I could not have say better. That's strange that a country who are reffering itself as the most democratic and free place on earth is probably one of the least.
I mean in congo or somalia, you expect corruption, and people know it. In US, there is corruption (see exit poll from last two elections) but people don't think there is. It's worse!
When the top is corrupted, don't expect some low IQ policeman do the work as we expect it.
Just a little question : the actual terrorists of 9/11 actually get valid passport and flew legally in the USA and from the USA. Did a new passport with all kind of information and data will prevent this to happen again?
http://www.jp-petit.com/science/metaphysique/geome trisation_antimatiere.PDF
English.pdf.
This guy actually need to be read. His model of the universe explain the "dark matter" problem very simply, and his computer simulation of this twin universe model (made 10 years ago) match the galaxy pattern we see, without esoteric explanations. If you can imagine the possibility of negative mass, you can understand easily why universe is expanding at a faster rate than predicted with current models. Read him (www.jp-petit.com, in french).
And by the way, he was director of CNRS.
Sure, A.I. Would be needed in any interesting solution, but actually we can't afford to loose a roover, the chances are too great that bad decision could be made. The real solution can be found in nature : reproduction. This could seems bizarre at first sight, but if you can allow some to be lost because some can be created or helped in case of troubles, A.I. become very interesting. You can after any problem fine tune it to help recognize bad atterns, bad situations.
For example, send a x billion$ farm unit that can generate little moving unit, and send them anywhere! With distributed network, allow all of them to communicate with low power, and if one is stuck, maybe send a master unit to help it.
This required much less human interaction and can map a region very fast. Redundancy, as in computer, is the key!
My 2 cents
Here is the secret design behing all this :
on
X43-A on to Mach 10
·
· Score: 1
http://www.jp-petit.com/nouv_f/X43/X43_1.htm
video and explanations : http://www.jp-petit.com/bio_fr/video_jpp_2003.htm
B2 Modified with MHD : http://www.jp-petit.com/nouv_f/B2/B2_0.htm
Hi
I agree with you that this is still pure hypothesis, but I would ask you something : do you prefer a theory of missing matter (hypothesis) or a theory of negative mass matter, wich can only be seen by it's gravitation field with our "positive" mass?
For your Wikipedia reference, we have never seen such gaz problem because by gravitational force this negative mass never come on earth, or maybe some exception.
BUT: this negative mass can regroup itself in galaxies between our known and visible galaxies, in a kind of "parallel" universe, making a repulsive force to our galaxies in such a way it repulse slightly the stars at the frontier of the galaxies.
Anyway, the "missing" mass must be somewhere or something must be discovered to finalize this little part of understanding of the universe, and I prefer a lot this theory that seems to close the book for the gravitational part, instead of trying to explain the non-expansion of the universe by an hypothetical missing matter. It only push the problem elsewhere, where is the missing matter, what is it, etc...
Maybe we will know better in 50 years...
I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but there is other explanation for all the gravitational effects, missing matter, galaxies not expanding etc...
There is a possibility of "antimatter" with antigravity property. This can explain why galaxies are not expanding as the theory would predict. Some says it's the mass of the neutrinos, some says it's the gravitational equation that bounds to a minimum, and some other explain that we simply live with a parallel universe (no SF here), wich can only interact with us by gravitational force.
So, it's like the opposite of magnets : in that "world", everything is like the gravity we know in our world, but when a + encounter a -, it becomes like a gravity repulsion.
If you speak french, you can have details of this theory (as well as a program prototype wich clearly demonstrate that galaxy form like what we see can come from such a model) at
www.jp-petit.com
This guy is very open minded, and have a very strong scientific career.
Think what you want, but one aspect of intelligence is being imaginative and open minded. I actually prefer this theory as what we actually try to make us eat.
You have a bunch of hacker in their backyard that can do a software that can do a job for 1/100 or 1/1000 of the cost that IBM would charge. Probably you will have a cheap interface, some bugs, but if you only want to do the job for cheap, it CAN be possible. Maybe one bug would be a major failure, so we will crash the mission. But you will always find volunteers to go to mars, even if we tell them that there is 1% chance of comming back, or even 0%. So, why not try?
The BEST try in my opinion would be to try to establish a permanent colonization on mars : bring the stuff to generate electricity : with electricity, you can recycle CO2 in O2, you can heat, you can generate light to make plants grow and eat them. Bring the stuff to make the living people here able to produce the basic : electricity and food. After this, when people can think about something else than survival, we will have another earth.
I will never see that from my living, but my hopes are that this comes fast.
In the time of the mainframe, when a company was selling a "software" to another company, the hardware was comming with the hardware. So the client was paying for a software, not hardware. What Bill Gates is saying right now is that the market tend to become like before. I nearly agree that hardware cost less than ever, but I think open source can make thing even better : nearly free hardware with free software, and FREE network. This will lead to a new kind of wireless appliance!
Slashdot Mirror
HTM-404 seems good also
Jean-Pierre Petit, ex director of CNRS, made a lot of mathematical proof of the possibility of negative mass and the implication. If interested, please read those explanations.
http://www.jp-petit.org/science/arxiv/publications_recentes.htm
Link to :
Bigravity as an interpretation of cosmic acceleration : http://www.jp-petit.org/science/arxiv/CITV_1_acceleration_english.pdf
Bigravity : A bimetric model of the Universe. Exact nonlinear solutions. Positive and negative gravitational lensings: http://www.jp-petit.org/science/arxiv/CITV_2_exact_solutions_english.pdf
I don't want to talk for him, but ex director of CNRS (Jean-Pierre Petit) jp-petit.org explains that universe could be formed by two time pannels from the big bang (see his exact mathematical interpretation on his website). Each panels got opposite sign for the mass, and cannot interfer with each other, other than by gravitation. But since a negative mass would repulse positive mass, this could easilly explain the precence of such a big "nothing" (for us). This would divert light coming from behind, and we would not see this negative mass (maybe a huge galaxy). This theory also explains in part the missing matter.
Following the first Sandia test (z-machine), Jean-Pierre Petit explains that it could be used as in a automobile motor : successive fusion. With the temperature reached, it could allow many kind of fusion wich are absolutly not polluting. You can see his presentation at : "http://www.jp-petit.org/science/Z-machine/machine s_MHD/machines_MHD_bases.htm#course_armements".
He also talks about the possible military usage, wich would allow any country to get a nuclear weapon...
You can translate his page via google translate, french to english.
Quantum theory already predicts instant creation of matter for a very small amount of time from nothing. Universe simply got create as a quantum fluctuation where time before "universe" didn't exists, so the normally very small amount of time that matter can be created could then be infinite since time means nothing before universe. And then, quantum theory stills apply inside the newly created universe.
God (if...) didn't create universe : he create rules.
Jean-Pierre Petit is a French scientist, retired member of the CNRS, which have been banned because he ask for truth : his detractors only wants to be anonymous. He found who they were, and for that get banned for life by kiddy-know-everything-admins. Go see for yourselfs how a little group of admin can change the neutrality of the site.
** the International System unit of time is the second. Minutes, hours, days, weeks, and months are ***NOT*** metric units ** But they are defined in the ISO8601 standard.
Exactly, Tesla did it 100 years ago, and over more than a km distance! But people don't know that guy. Tesla coil, radio transmission, AC electricity etc. The only thing new is the usage, little scale.
Hi
I think I need to explain the difference between a net production of co2 (petroleum) and a normal production of c02 : the carbon cycle. Let me resume it. If you burn vegetable (biodiesel, biofuel etc), you don't have a net production of c02. Yeah sure you have co2 produced, but it will be reinserted in vegetation, since you took that biofuel by cutting some vegetation. You also breathe, it gives you co2, but vegetable convert it back to o2 and carbon.
On the opposite, burning petroleum means a net creation of co2 wich will take million of years to go back to it's original form ; it means a net production of c02 wich remains in our atmosphere. Even if scientists argue that petroleum is the cause of global warming, I assume it's reasonnable to think that petroleum produce co2 remaining in atmosphere, and is probably causing something. In what proportion? I don't know, but I don't like irreversible modification to the earth!
I hope you see that there is a major difference now.
I could not have say better. That's strange that a country who are reffering itself as the most democratic and free place on earth is probably one of the least. I mean in congo or somalia, you expect corruption, and people know it. In US, there is corruption (see exit poll from last two elections) but people don't think there is. It's worse! When the top is corrupted, don't expect some low IQ policeman do the work as we expect it.
Hi everyone
Just a little question : the actual terrorists of 9/11 actually get valid passport and flew legally in the USA and from the USA. Did a new passport with all kind of information and data will prevent this to happen again?
As a Quebecer, I would be please to leave Canada and make a whole new country, as 54% of the Quebec wants.
http://www.jp-petit.com/science/metaphysique/geome trisation_antimatiere.PDF
English .pdf.
This guy actually need to be read. His model of the universe explain the "dark matter" problem very simply, and his computer simulation of this twin universe model (made 10 years ago) match the galaxy pattern we see, without esoteric explanations. If you can imagine the possibility of negative mass, you can understand easily why universe is expanding at a faster rate than predicted with current models. Read him (www.jp-petit.com, in french).
And by the way, he was director of CNRS.
"Nevada test site" You actually get roads. They could have been funier by putting some UFO Photo instead of gray area!
You surely know that both of them have been at Yales, but do you know they both members of Skull & Bones? This election means nothing.
US are very too dumb, they will elect Bush and they stress, it's very funny!
You know, in Canada it would be free... That's why Canada is cool... AND, we don't go to war for oil ;-)
If you have any problem on where to put this facility, you actually have two great choices : North Korea and Iran.
Sure, A.I. Would be needed in any interesting solution, but actually we can't afford to loose a roover, the chances are too great that bad decision could be made. The real solution can be found in nature : reproduction. This could seems bizarre at first sight, but if you can allow some to be lost because some can be created or helped in case of troubles, A.I. become very interesting. You can after any problem fine tune it to help recognize bad atterns, bad situations.
For example, send a x billion$ farm unit that can generate little moving unit, and send them anywhere! With distributed network, allow all of them to communicate with low power, and if one is stuck, maybe send a master unit to help it.
This required much less human interaction and can map a region very fast. Redundancy, as in computer, is the key!
My 2 cents
http://www.jp-petit.com/nouv_f/X43/X43_1.htm video and explanations : http://www.jp-petit.com/bio_fr/video_jpp_2003.htm B2 Modified with MHD : http://www.jp-petit.com/nouv_f/B2/B2_0.htm
Hi I agree with you that this is still pure hypothesis, but I would ask you something : do you prefer a theory of missing matter (hypothesis) or a theory of negative mass matter, wich can only be seen by it's gravitation field with our "positive" mass? For your Wikipedia reference, we have never seen such gaz problem because by gravitational force this negative mass never come on earth, or maybe some exception. BUT: this negative mass can regroup itself in galaxies between our known and visible galaxies, in a kind of "parallel" universe, making a repulsive force to our galaxies in such a way it repulse slightly the stars at the frontier of the galaxies. Anyway, the "missing" mass must be somewhere or something must be discovered to finalize this little part of understanding of the universe, and I prefer a lot this theory that seems to close the book for the gravitational part, instead of trying to explain the non-expansion of the universe by an hypothetical missing matter. It only push the problem elsewhere, where is the missing matter, what is it, etc... Maybe we will know better in 50 years...
I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but there is other explanation for all the gravitational effects, missing matter, galaxies not expanding etc... There is a possibility of "antimatter" with antigravity property. This can explain why galaxies are not expanding as the theory would predict. Some says it's the mass of the neutrinos, some says it's the gravitational equation that bounds to a minimum, and some other explain that we simply live with a parallel universe (no SF here), wich can only interact with us by gravitational force. So, it's like the opposite of magnets : in that "world", everything is like the gravity we know in our world, but when a + encounter a -, it becomes like a gravity repulsion. If you speak french, you can have details of this theory (as well as a program prototype wich clearly demonstrate that galaxy form like what we see can come from such a model) at www.jp-petit.com This guy is very open minded, and have a very strong scientific career. Think what you want, but one aspect of intelligence is being imaginative and open minded. I actually prefer this theory as what we actually try to make us eat.
You have a bunch of hacker in their backyard that can do a software that can do a job for 1/100 or 1/1000 of the cost that IBM would charge. Probably you will have a cheap interface, some bugs, but if you only want to do the job for cheap, it CAN be possible. Maybe one bug would be a major failure, so we will crash the mission. But you will always find volunteers to go to mars, even if we tell them that there is 1% chance of comming back, or even 0%. So, why not try? The BEST try in my opinion would be to try to establish a permanent colonization on mars : bring the stuff to generate electricity : with electricity, you can recycle CO2 in O2, you can heat, you can generate light to make plants grow and eat them. Bring the stuff to make the living people here able to produce the basic : electricity and food. After this, when people can think about something else than survival, we will have another earth. I will never see that from my living, but my hopes are that this comes fast.
In the time of the mainframe, when a company was selling a "software" to another company, the hardware was comming with the hardware. So the client was paying for a software, not hardware. What Bill Gates is saying right now is that the market tend to become like before. I nearly agree that hardware cost less than ever, but I think open source can make thing even better : nearly free hardware with free software, and FREE network. This will lead to a new kind of wireless appliance!
Pool on the roof must have a leak! ;-)