I've seen material like this years ago. They did it on Beyond 2000 or some show like that on the Discovery Channel. They showed how you can bend this material (they spelled a name) into a shape, then dip it in a chemical, straighten it out agian, and when you apply heat, it goes right back to how it was. (the order of events may be off, but thats basically how it went)
no matter where you are in the universe, the laws of physics are the same for all inertial (constant velocity) frames
Are you saying that light will always be moving at c?? Just because light enteres a medium, doesn't mean that time slows down because light is slowing down. The reason light slows down is because it has to exite every atom that it encounteres, then be thrown out again.
They've even collected good evidence that the speed of light has changed over time... I'm really starting to doubt einstein.
Suppose you're on a hypothetical train traveling at a constant velocity of 0.5c towards a friend, and you point a flashlight straight forward and turn it on. You perceive the beam of light as traveling toward your friend at speed c; however, your friend sees the beam of light as traveling toward him at speed c, and not speed 1.5c. How can this be?
Take a jet for example. Say it it traveling at mach 2, and it fires a missle in which the missile maximum speed is mach 5. Now there is a stationary SAM site on the ground that will be blown up in a little bit... but the SAM site sees the missle coming at him at mach 5, and not mach 7. How can this be? Because you're missing the obvious....
Light does have it's speed limit. The easiest explanation for that would be a drag in the ether that keeps it from exceeding that speed.
You perceive the beam of light as traveling toward your friend at speed c
That is the mistake in the example... It is trying to prove relativity, but without relativity, that sentence would be false... You can't prove something by initially assuming that it is true; using the theory within the explanation for the theory.
Here's a sample from one I just downloaded yesterday:
I. On completion of the installation on the owners PC in which he has full authority to lease, rent, sell, or distroy, the author of the licensed software in question retains the right to cease the third party ownership of the hardware verbatum in management solution languages.
II. If licensee revokes his/her/its legality premits of the fourth retainership level of rent, then all copyright infrigement laws become obsolete, status in political ownership of software layer ownership halts on the date in question of the rent infringement.
III. If third party ownership decides to change original binary stack contained within the leased fourth layer management language, verbatum polysoftware triad topical analysis will be enforced upon the first party owner.
"This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence--even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!"
Not necessarily. That would mean that everything would have to come back exactly to how it was.... and it doesn't have to. Just because the universe collapses and bursts out again doesn't mean that it does so in the same exact manner. The net energy in a closed system can be the same (zero) with an innumerable ammount of possible permutations... it doesn't have to be the same every time...
the universe never began and will never end, driven forever to expand in a series of monster explosions and contract every eon or so in a cosmic crunch. This is directly contradictory to the big-bang theory.
In a nutshell... no, it doesn't contradict the theory. It just gives an explanation as to how that primeval atom came to existance.... by everything crunching together.
There are tons of theories about how the big bang happened. One about some cracked out idea of the 5th dimension crashing into the 3rd or some shit.... I think we make it harder than it really is.
Actually you can have both. If all matter crunches back together again, why couldn't it explode out in another Big Bang??
Re:Infinity is a very difficult concept to even..
on
Big Bang or Cosmic Crunch?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The universe will expand and contract.. but what force is causing the expansion and contraction? Is it a natural extension of some force that we've yet to appropriately measure?
Well because there is a gravitational force between all matter within the universe, no matter how far. So eventually all matter will form into massive clumps. Even if the last 2 remaining clumps are really really really really far away (really) from eachother, there will still be a small gravitational attraction toward eachother. It will take eons for them to come together again, but it will happen... at the center of the universe.
These messages have to be routed through major servers. First they have to go to the root nameservers to get the.com... then the DNS blah blah blah to get the IP that they're going to send it to, couldn't they just set something up on the root servers to start blocking requests from Chinese computers after the attack has begun? Is that a possibility?
finding the oldest stars puts astronomers well within arm's reach of calculating the absolute age of the universe
...May 14th?
Well I have a 1/365 chance of that being right!
Re:Doesn't the earth receive more? beware!
on
Lunar Power
·
· Score: 1
You said that the Earth has siesmic movement.... then stated that a movement like that could cause a microwave misfire.... yet the transmitter is on the moon. Don't you think that they would also create one hell of a dish to collect it??
That is if we transmit toward earth all the time... We could setup 3 sattelites orbiting the moon in geosynchrynous orbit. 2 of them would be on exact opposite sides of the moon, gathering equal ammounts of microwave energy. The third would be used to get energy from both, then transmit to the earth in a single mircowave beam. The sattelites themselves could use some of the energy to correct their orbit every so often.
Re:Doesn't the earth receive more? beware!
on
Lunar Power
·
· Score: 1
We would either have to put it at a place that can see the moon at all times... (probably at one of the poles??) Or just launch a few sattelites to orbit the earth and provide a link to certian stations around the globe. Since they have already successfully uplinked sattelites by laser, setting this array up couldn't be that much different... just make the transmitter on the moon able to change where its transmitting.
You can transfer at 22Mbps at further distances using the new Catagory 5e air... even further with the newely developed Catagory 6 (developed by ISO/IEC and TIA). Catagory 7 air is still under development by ISO/IEC.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a slashdot post a while ago... but here's the actual page it was linking too http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.h tml... pretty big news.
I've seen material like this years ago. They did it on Beyond 2000 or some show like that on the Discovery Channel. They showed how you can bend this material (they spelled a name) into a shape, then dip it in a chemical, straighten it out agian, and when you apply heat, it goes right back to how it was. (the order of events may be off, but thats basically how it went)
no matter where you are in the universe, the laws of physics are the same for all inertial (constant velocity) frames
Are you saying that light will always be moving at c?? Just because light enteres a medium, doesn't mean that time slows down because light is slowing down. The reason light slows down is because it has to exite every atom that it encounteres, then be thrown out again.
They've even collected good evidence that the speed of light has changed over time... I'm really starting to doubt einstein.
Suppose you're on a hypothetical train traveling at a constant velocity of 0.5c towards a friend, and you point a flashlight straight forward and turn it on. You perceive the beam of light as traveling toward your friend at speed c; however, your friend sees the beam of light as traveling toward him at speed c, and not speed 1.5c. How can this be?
Take a jet for example. Say it it traveling at mach 2, and it fires a missle in which the missile maximum speed is mach 5. Now there is a stationary SAM site on the ground that will be blown up in a little bit... but the SAM site sees the missle coming at him at mach 5, and not mach 7. How can this be? Because you're missing the obvious....
Light does have it's speed limit. The easiest explanation for that would be a drag in the ether that keeps it from exceeding that speed.
You perceive the beam of light as traveling toward your friend at speed c
That is the mistake in the example... It is trying to prove relativity, but without relativity, that sentence would be false... You can't prove something by initially assuming that it is true; using the theory within the explanation for the theory.
Didn't Einstein fail math?
Is it known yet whether most other earth-like planets have as intense a magnetic field
Earth's magnetic field is hardly "intense", heh
Here's a sample from one I just downloaded yesterday :
I. On completion of the installation on the owners PC in which he has full authority to lease, rent, sell, or distroy, the author of the licensed software in question retains the right to cease the third party ownership of the hardware verbatum in management solution languages.
II. If licensee revokes his/her/its legality premits of the fourth retainership level of rent, then all copyright infrigement laws become obsolete, status in political ownership of software layer ownership halts on the date in question of the rent infringement.
III. If third party ownership decides to change original binary stack contained within the leased fourth layer management language, verbatum polysoftware triad topical analysis will be enforced upon the first party owner.
IV. All your base belongs to us.
actually just because it is temperal, doesn't mean that time has everything to do with it.
The collapse does not rely on time at all.... so how would time play a part?
....what does time have to do with matter collapsing in on itself again?
What other "variables" are you talking about?
"This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence--even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!"
Not necessarily. That would mean that everything would have to come back exactly to how it was.... and it doesn't have to. Just because the universe collapses and bursts out again doesn't mean that it does so in the same exact manner. The net energy in a closed system can be the same (zero) with an innumerable ammount of possible permutations... it doesn't have to be the same every time...
the universe never began and will never end, driven forever to expand in a series of monster explosions and contract every eon or so in a cosmic crunch. This is directly contradictory to the big-bang theory.
In a nutshell... no, it doesn't contradict the theory. It just gives an explanation as to how that primeval atom came to existance.... by everything crunching together.
There are tons of theories about how the big bang happened. One about some cracked out idea of the 5th dimension crashing into the 3rd or some shit.... I think we make it harder than it really is.
Big Bang or Cosmic Crunch?
Actually you can have both. If all matter crunches back together again, why couldn't it explode out in another Big Bang??
The universe will expand and contract.. but what force is causing the expansion and contraction? Is it a natural extension of some force that we've yet to appropriately measure?
Well because there is a gravitational force between all matter within the universe, no matter how far. So eventually all matter will form into massive clumps. Even if the last 2 remaining clumps are really really really really far away (really) from eachother, there will still be a small gravitational attraction toward eachother. It will take eons for them to come together again, but it will happen... at the center of the universe.
These messages have to be routed through major servers. First they have to go to the root nameservers to get the .com... then the DNS blah blah blah to get the IP that they're going to send it to, couldn't they just set something up on the root servers to start blocking requests from Chinese computers after the attack has begun? Is that a possibility?
oops..... my bad
Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 inhabitable planets in the Milky Way.
...last time I checked, we were trying to count the number of habitable planets?
finding the oldest stars puts astronomers well within arm's reach of calculating the absolute age of the universe
...May 14th?
Well I have a 1/365 chance of that being right!
You said that the Earth has siesmic movement.... then stated that a movement like that could cause a microwave misfire.... yet the transmitter is on the moon. Don't you think that they would also create one hell of a dish to collect it??
Code Red didn't even make the year's virus Top 10
...maybe because Code Red was a worm?
But after you spend all the money putting it up... the company controlling this energy would EASILY make it back.... plus trillions more....
That is if we transmit toward earth all the time... We could setup 3 sattelites orbiting the moon in geosynchrynous orbit. 2 of them would be on exact opposite sides of the moon, gathering equal ammounts of microwave energy. The third would be used to get energy from both, then transmit to the earth in a single mircowave beam. The sattelites themselves could use some of the energy to correct their orbit every so often.
We would either have to put it at a place that can see the moon at all times... (probably at one of the poles??) Or just launch a few sattelites to orbit the earth and provide a link to certian stations around the globe. Since they have already successfully uplinked sattelites by laser, setting this array up couldn't be that much different... just make the transmitter on the moon able to change where its transmitting.
Actually... Catagory 6 air is concidered unsuitable for human life... so it'll be a while till we use that...
You can transfer at 22Mbps at further distances using the new Catagory 5e air... even further with the newely developed Catagory 6 (developed by ISO/IEC and TIA). Catagory 7 air is still under development by ISO/IEC.
of course someone will at one point be the ONLY maker of a technology... its called patents...
Sony isnt the only maker of MD's....
Sony arent the only people who make MD player/recorders... Canon has a large lineup as well...