Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: IceyJones on March 11, 2008, 03:18:34 am
-
habitable planets around alpha centauri possible:
Follow the link to the press-release (http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3482)
-
No, it wont, because unless we funnel billions of dollars into hyper drive tech and or sleeper ship tech we won't even get there
-
why arent we funneling billions of money units into hyperdrive tech?
-
Because first we have to decide on a destination before we decide how we are to get there!
-
Say what you want, in RL, FTL Travel is impossible.
-
Say what you want, in RL, FTL Travel is impossible.
Not necessarily, we might not be able to break the laws of physics, but we might be able to bend them a little!
-
NO.
Physical Laws are un-break-able and un-bend-able. They CAN NOT be modified.
-
Say what you want, in RL, FTL Travel is impossible.
FTL travel is AFAIK not impossible by current understanding of the physics or the universe...
...only snag is that accelerating to lightspeed is.
-
NO.
Physical Laws are un-break-able and un-bend-able. They CAN NOT be modified.
Until, of course, someone comes along and defines a new set of laws, or builds an extension onto the old ones, much as Einstein did with Newtons' work.
-
NO.
Physical Laws are un-break-able and un-bend-able. They CAN NOT be modified.
Until, of course, someone comes along and defines a new set of laws, or builds an extension onto the old ones, much as Einstein did with Newtons' work.
Quantum theory and research into wormholes is already doing this.
-
You need to make a distinction between laws of physics and laws of nature. The difference is that laws of physics are man-made approximations of nature's workings and are subject to change as new information is discovered - and nature is not bound to abide by them.
The laws of nature are what laws of physics try to be, but likely will never completely succeed.
Right now it very strongly seems that it is impossible for an object with rest mass (m0 > 0) to accelerate to c, based on the kinetic energies (and half times, or life times if you will) of particles moving at high relative velocities, but that's not a guarantee that there wouldn't be a way to move things from A to B faster than light travels from A to B. Usually proposed options include making the way between A and B shorter (warp drive, which actually has somewhat of a sound theoretical basis already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive), the problem is manipulating space-time continuum...), or creating a shorter alternative route between A and B (wormhole, or Einstein-Rosen bridge).
Of course, there's always a possibility that some kind of subspace, B5-hyperspace or Star Wars hyperspace are discovered. Not necessarily in that form, but if the multiverse-theory is correct, it wouldn't be too surprising to find out a way to interact between universes.
Especially seeing how latest experiments seem to suggest that interaction between universes happens on a routine basis and all the time on, say, particle interference... :drevil:
If such basic optical phenomena as interference practically depend on inter-universal quantum interaction, who knows what kinds of technology it will eventually spawn...
-
Physical Laws are un-break-able and un-bend-able. They CAN NOT be modified.
Not quite true. It's the laws of nature that are unbreakable and unbendable. The laws of physics are just our current best guess at how the laws of nature work, and as such may be incomplete or plain wrong in important areas.
[Edit] Bah, beaten by 12 seconds. And he wrote a whole dissertation too. I fail :p
-
my intension was really not to start a discussion about the physics and space travel in general. i just wanted to show, that there might be habitable planets around our nearest star system.....nothing more ;)
-
Ah, but there's nothing fun about inhabitable planets if we can't get to them. Therefore, discussion about space travel and physics is inevitable.
-
babylon 5 will not become reality because amigas are gone and we don't have 90s haircuts any more.
-
we don't have 90s haircuts any more.
That can be arranged.
-
we don't have 90s haircuts any more.
That can be arranged.
keep your filthy fingers off my afro bro *is drafted, goes to nam, is killed*
-
*is drafted, goes to nam, is killed*
Life is (http://omglol.kerrolisaa.com/1/960.jpg).
-
Say what you want, in RL, FTL Travel is impossible.
Not impossible...just extremely difficult to the extreme. Some mathematicians and physicists calculated out what it would take to warp space time and jump from one location to another. Its doable...just needs allot of power. Lots of physicists mention that FTL is not impossible and that there are short cuts around accelerating up to light speed but the difficulties in making something like that work require far more than we're technologically capable of envisioning in quite a while yet.
-
NO.
Physical Laws are un-break-able and un-bend-able. They CAN NOT be modified.
Yeah, this is what they said with the airplane, too.
-
Nothing is impossible until it is proven to not work.
-
Yeah, this is what they said with the airplane, too.
jerk.....the airplane worked, because the physics said, that it WILL work, that it is possible.
with space travel it is a little bit different....you know....
or are you A QUACK? (http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html)
-
noone said anything about moving at the speed of light, thats too slow.
afaik theres nothing to prevent us from going to another dimention thats more compressed, driving at 10 kph and popping out a billion lightyears away from E)
-
Thing is, from what I recall, the speed of light isn't even a particularly 'constant' constant It wobbles around all over the place near large gravity wells such as Jupiter or the Sun.
-
my intension was really not to start a discussion about the physics and space travel in general. i just wanted to show, that there might be habitable planets around our nearest star system.....nothing more ;)
Wrong. Proxima Centauri is our nearest.
BTW, Gliese ftw. Apart from it's like 15 day year and sudden and strong bursts of gamma radiation, it's perfect.
-
Only for now, give it a few millennia and it will be Barnards star, and the odds of anything useful around that are pretty slim.
For some reason, I just thought of a really ancient game called 'Tau Ceti'.....
-
Wrong. Proxima Centauri is our nearest.
BTW, Gliese ftw. Apart from it's like 15 day year and sudden and strong bursts of gamma radiation, it's perfect.
when nutpicking, then right please....
alpha centauri is a SYSTEM of THREE stars:
- alpha centauri A
distance = 23 AU
- alpha centauri B
distance 13000 AU
- proxima centauri
i was NOT NAMING a single star, but called it SYSTEM.....
thanks ;)
-
I've never understood (or been inclined to to look up) why does travelling at Light Speed entail breaking physics laws ? I seem to recall it envokes some time travel hijinks too ?
-
it´s impossible because of E=mc2
it shows, that you need infinite energy in order to accelerate a mass to the speed of light......but nothing is infinite.....
-
Trying to flyl at the speed of light, you're own mass would kill you LONG before you reached it...now, if you somehow managed to nullify your mass (handwavium) then flying at the speed of light might actually be possible.
-
Yeah, this is what they said with the airplane, too.
jerk.....the airplane worked, because the physics said, that it WILL work, that it is possible.
with space travel it is a little bit different....you know....
or are you A QUACK? (http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html)
No, it worked because the laws of nature said it would work. The laws of physics, which at that time said it wouldn't work, were still in WIP stage, as they are now.
-
Trying to flyl at the speed of light, you're own mass would kill you LONG before you reached it...now, if you somehow managed to nullify your mass (handwavium) then flying at the speed of light might actually be possible.
No it wouldn't. It's a common misconception that velocity increases (physical amount of) mass. It doesn't actually do that. Velocity increases momentum in a non-linear curve. The mass that affects gravity - on both co-ordinates, of the ship and "static" observer, will remain the same.
Kinetic mass is a mathematical tool to describe how the momentum increase isn't linear after all, but approaches infinity as the velocity approaches c. It's a way to model inertia, but it certainly does not mean that the physical amount of matter (mass) on the speeding object changes. In other words, it is used as substitution for more complex equation for relativistic inertia and energy,
p = mv and E=mc^2
where m is not in fact the rest mass but "kinetic" mass. The rest mass of objects is used to calculate what the kinetic mass of an object would appear to be, from the formula
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/9/5/295f54e720724a8ca1e9bbacff387216.png)
where m0 is of course the rest mass, v is the velocity relative to observer, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
After all, an observer on the fast-moving object's inertial co-ordinate system would measure the object's velocity as zero. And to that observer, the object's mass is exactly it's rest mass.
In fact, many lecturers of special relativity have actually ceased using the terms "rest mass" and "kinetic mass" because they are so very easy to mix up profoundly on a conceptual level, since even though the math is relatively (pun intended) simple and straightforward, the interpretations and implications are not... For example, it's still not quite clear to me if Lorentz-contraction of relative co-ordinates is an observation or a real phenomenon... and, indeed, what is the difference between observation and reality. After all, don't we define reality by observations? Even the concept of simultaneity in relativity is heavily connected to observations due to signal speed limit of c - which can be interpreted, in a way, so that what you see on the night sky is simultaneous to this co-ordinate system. Or you could interpret our time as global time and make the distance-time corrections to each star's relative time to us.
But I digress, again. Perhaps the best example that literally proves that mass doesn't increase as velocity increases are neutrinos. Them buggers have a small rest mass and they hurl through the universe originating from most nuclear reactions, and their velocity is very close to speed of light, but they do not collapse to singularities and eat up the whole universe, most obviously. :p
Would you like to know more? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity)
-
until today it is not 100% clear, that neutrinos even have a mass.....but if they have, its terrible small, which would allow a speed NEAR the vacuum light speed. but NO particle with a rest mass higher than "0" can reach lightspeed.....its impossible......
-
But even then, photons themselves seem to live in world somewhere between wave and particle, they actually obey certain laws that apply to both, gravity can bend light, which should be impossible unless it has mass, for example.
-
right....photons don´t have a mass, but they have energy, wich corelates with a mass.....therefor they are also bound to the Geodesic of the spacetime and are redirected by a curved spacetime wich we find around EVERY mass.....even a photon has gravity....
-
That's only one of the discrepancies though, I'm not a Quantum physicist, obviously, probably someone like Herra could cover it better than I, but I do know there are still a lot of behaviours from a photon that haven't yet been explained, so I'm still not writing off the possibility that it is possible to have mass and travel at light speeds, though I'll accept the most likely cure is a 'shortcut' rather than going nose-first against Relativity.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/9/5/295f54e720724a8ca1e9bbacff387216.png)
That's exactly the formula I was looking for! ;)
One can see clearly in it why one can't go faster than light - the root can't be a negative number! Which means the (v/c)^2 can't be bigger than 1, which čeads to the conclusion that v < c
-
me neither, so we should leave this discussion to the more specialized peoples and institutes out there.
we all here can only argue with half knowledge......
nevertheless fact is, that science does not function with revolutions. it envolves, it grows on prooven theories......each new theory must be part of the new one. the new one has to describe also the old one....
means, accepted and PROVEN rules of physics cannot be broken, even if we find out everything i.e. about the duality of light, etc and so maybe someday a flaw to higher speeds than light. but also in future it only can be a way around this "speed"limit, we will never break through.....the only possibility i can imagine would be a re-routing through another dimension, but never a bending of spacetime (warp)....the energy consumption is too huge.....
-
One can see clearly in it why one can't go faster than light - the root can't be a negative number! Which means the (v/c)^2 can't be bigger than 1, which čeads to the conclusion that v < c
Problem with that is the minor detail that the function you were talking about is IIRC only defined if v belongs to {0, c}. So you can't prove anything with it above c because as far as we know the function does not exists in above c velocities...
As for the negative roots.. well there are complex numbers which do actually have other uses than just to annoy people in math lessons.
-
until today it is not 100% clear, that neutrinos even have a mass.
Well, neutrino oscillation means almost certainly that they have a rest mass m>0.
Neutrino oscillation means that there are three types of neutrinos - electron's, myon's and tau's neutrinos - and they oscillate spontaneously into each other. Current observation hardware can only detect electron's neutrinos, which explains why we observe only 1/3rd of expected amount of neutrino flux coming from the Sun.
The fact that neutrinos can change from one state into another during their existence is proof that they experience time, unlike photons that are in a "locked" state dring their observed existence and cannot change during their journey from emission point to absorption point. For photons, the time it takes to get from A to B is zero.
Also, the relation between mass and velocity is pretty straightforward - objects that have rest mass m>0, all move at velocity v<c in relation to each other. Objects that have rest mass of exactly zero (m==0) move at exactly velocity v==c. Photons are the only known example of this category. Presumable, objects with negative rest mass (m<0) would move at speeds v>c... but existence of negative mass is only hypothesized (not that antimatter has positive mass and positive energy consistence). Even negative energy is kinda hazy concept... Tachyons, IIRC, should have negative mass if they exist.
Anyway, this pretty much means that since neutrinos experience time and thus move at velocity v<c, they have rest mass, albeit very small, but existent nevertheless.
As to why photons seem to be affected by gravity is not quite as straightforward as it might seem. Photons, in fact, are not affected by gravity. Strictly interpreted, mass is not affected by gravity either because in general relativity, gravity is an apparent force.
In general relativity, mass affects the space-time continuum by applying tension to it and causing it's metrics to change. Or actually, it's energy that affects the space-time, but relative energy forms like kinetic energy and the energy of photon do not sum up onto the apparent gravitational interaction between objects, so it's accurate enough to say that it's the (rest) mass that affects the curvature as far as gravitational effects are considered... And please don't ask me to write the energy tensor metrics here, I can't. I basically know what happens but I can't use the maths... yet.
Anyhow, mass curves space-time. Photons move on straight line. Straight (geodetic) line in non-euclidian, distorted space time appears to us as curved. That's how and why photons seem to be affected by gravity.
Objects with mass, though, interact with each other using the space-time as a medium, which causes them to move in seemingly non-geodetic trajectories compared to the routes of photons.
MY interpretation is that space-time tension metrics is also what causes inertia to exist, since accelerating objects form an asymmetric distortion field, which kinda causes an accelerating object to experience resistance to the acceleration... it also means that changing the tension of local space-time takes and stores energy (kinetic energy) and offers quite interesting implications considering light speed limit being a result of the fact that gravitational radiation - ie. the propagation velocity of changes in space-time curvature - is limited to c, in which case a ship trying to accelerate to light speed would generate an extremely asymmetric gravity field as seen from a static observation point... not unlike the sound barrier.
It wouldn't be observable by the ship's travelers, but static observers on the original inertial frame of the space ship would likely notice how the ship's apparent acceleration would approach zero, as the ship would be closer and closer to the front end of the distortion.
Unlike in the case of sound barrier, though, it's not seemingly possibly to exceed the signal speed and create a shockwave instead of just an asymmetric distortion field, since it would require getting detached from the space-time continuum. The concept of being outside space and time is, of course, pretty outlandish and completely hypothetical in current physics but hey, who knows? Any sufficiently advanced technology and so on...
Ah, the monthly physics debate quota is filling... ;)
nevertheless fact is, that science does not function with revolutions. it envolves, it grows on prooven theories......each new theory must be part of the new one. the new one has to describe also the old one....
Did you mean that "each old theory must be part of the new one"?
That is, in fact, not actually required. True, in most recent "evolution" step from classical physics to modern physics it happened, because goth Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's electrodynamics are in fact preserved in general relativity and quantum physics respectively, as special cases - in GR, when 0<v<<<c, Newtonian physics still holds; in quantum physics, most Maxwell's laws still apply with the exception of photons being handled as quanta instead of continuum of radiation and other interesting stuff like that.
However, if you consider the statement "each old theory must be part of the new on" it simply doesn't hold water. There are numerous old theories that have been abandoned because they were not replaced by more accurate theory, but because they were proven untrue. Heavier objects falling faster than lighter comes to mind, as well as geocentric models of universe. Or elements being fire, water, earth and air.
It is still possible (however unlikely) that the physics as we know it has gotten something completely wrong and needs a revision of the same magnitude as change from fire, water, earth and air to the current table of elements. Most likely the current models are pretty close to what's actually happening because they are accurate to the extreme, but it's still always a possibility that is inherent in positivism...
means, accepted and PROVEN rules of physics cannot be broken, even if we find out everything i.e. about the duality of light, etc and so maybe someday a flaw to higher speeds than light. but also in future it only can be a way around this "speed"limit, we will never break through.....the only possibility i can imagine would be a re-routing through another dimension, but never a bending of spacetime (warp)....the energy consumption is too huge.....
Acceptance and being "proven" rule of physics has nothing to do with being "truth" in physics. That's similar logic as "5 billion flies can't be wrong - manure tastes and smells good!"
The truth in physics means the highest level of accuracy possible to reach in depicting the inner workings of nature. I'd even go as far as saying that there are no proven rules of physics, only the set of most accurate currently available combination of theories and postulations.
I agree with you on that it would be very unlikely for our current knowledge of physics to be as accurate as it is while having major misconceptions, so with highest probability the current models will remain as special cases of future theories. However, stating this as a certain fact is against all the basic principles of science, so on a fundamental level I have to disagree. :p
-
i see, the language barrier struck again. i´m not able to discuss here on the same level, because many vocabulary is missing on my side....lets talk about paper machines pls :o))
but fact is, that acutal theories are discribing something. many physicians are making trials in order to proove them, or destroy them. but fact is, that in the macro-cosmos, this one:
E=mc2
is prooven in ALL trials made so far. so the results of this basic formula must be integrated in a new theory (or the new theory must lead to the same results as the above one) until someone comes and prooves with a new trial, that this formula is WRONG.....
heck....don´t know how to explain it....i hope you get what i mean....
a pity is, that einsteins formula does not work in micro-cosmos....here quantum physics apply......
so all are looking for the great, combined theory.....
-
One of the biggest problems with relativistic travel is that while a trip may seem short to you, as you approach the speed of light in the frame of reference that includes Earth and the destination, you would appear to experience much slower time to an observer in that frame. So you wouldn't necessarily appear to be going fast, but time for you would appear to be going slower. When returning to earth, more time will have passed there it would seem, and so everyone would be much older. At very relativistic speeds this practically eliminates the usefulness of this method of travel. If I remember my physics correctly anyway, it's been a couple years.
-
Who says nothing travels faster than light? Maybe we just can't detect anything that travels faster than light simply because it travels faster than light. Who knows maybe dark matter or dark energy travel faster than light (which would be why they are dark??)
Just a thought, I'm no physicist!
-
One of the biggest problems with relativistic travel is that while a trip may seem short to you, as you approach the speed of light in the frame of reference that includes Earth and the destination, you would appear to experience much slower time to an observer in that frame. So you wouldn't necessarily appear to be going fast, but time for you would appear to be going slower. When returning to earth, more time will have passed there it would seem, and so everyone would be much older. At very relativistic speeds this practically eliminates the usefulness of this method of travel. If I remember my physics correctly anyway, it's been a couple years.
Well, it's kinda two-edged sword.
For example, take Alpha Centauri. It's about 4.365 light years from Sol system. If we had a ship that moved there at, say, 0.95c average velocity, that means it would get there in about four years and 218 days (1678 days) Earth time.
However, due to time dilatation (or Lorentz-contraction, depends which way you want to view it), the time passed inside the ship would only be about 524 days. Or, from the perspective of the ship, they would observe the distance from Sol to Alpha Centauri being shortened due to Lorentz-contraction.
For the travelers, this is extremely convenient in scale of interstellar travel; for those left behind, not so much. It would obviously mean that a longer interstellar trip in normal space will never be a decision lightly taken, as it will effectively alienate travelers from those left behind due to time difference, and further more the time consumed in the ship will still be a lot, especially for reaching star systems further than Alpha Centauri.
Also, in the scale of galaxy-wide travels, the end of the universe will be upon the travelers much faster than for those left behind. If true, widespread interstellar travel is ever to become popular, some kind of FTL travel will need to be deviced. Whether or not it's possible at all, remains to be seen I guess. But I've said this before - for any sentient life form it's either stars or bust. For us, we'll need to have left Earth in about half a billion years as the Sun will evaporate the oceans from Earth by then. Then it's either settling on Mars and possibly moons of Jupiter and Saturn for a while, but eventually those alternatives will be closed as well and the Sol system will be literally wasted.
In a way it's even comforting to know that either human race and terran life as we know it will cease to be or rise to travel amongst the stars. And knowing the human race, we'll very likely at least try, and even if it fails, it will be the most scifiest time in the existence of human race.
Excluding perhaps the time when we figure out a way to stop the universe from dying, but that'll be later. A lot later. :p
-
Hmmmm... It seems to me that fighting Entropy would be like trying to open a box you are locked inside. But, as you say, who knows what the next Billion years has in store :)
-
At very relativistic speeds this practically eliminates the usefulness of this method of travel.
Only if you plan on coming back. :p
If all you want to do is establish independent colonies on other planets it doesn't really matter as you can still talk by radio or message laser.
-
but fact is, that acutal theories are discribing something. many physicians are making trials in order to proove them, or destroy them. but fact is, that in the macro-cosmos, this one:
E=mc2 is prooven in ALL trials made so far.
But how do you test for something you can't even describe, much less duplicate? There are things out there we can't work with using physics as we know it because they're just totally unrecognizeable. If you don't believe me, go ask a physicist about singularities, or why we can describe things up to just short of the actual Big Bang (we're still off it by some small but very crucial fraction of a second). Anything that can happen once can happen more then once. True, we have no idea how to possibly make any of the exception-generating things work for us, but they're out there. They prove it can be done.
-
Hmmmm... It seems to me that fighting Entropy would be like trying to open a box you are locked inside. But, as you say, who knows what the next Billion years has in store :)
Long live the Space Race. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gWOzUzJd6wM) :lol:
Only if you plan on coming back. :p
If all you want to do is establish independent colonies on other planets it doesn't really matter as you can still talk by radio or message laser.
...yeah.
Ping would be pretty horrible, though. At any rate, we need to figure out FTL transmission first so that our colonies in Sol system can play BtRL multiplayer with Earth peeps and each other. ;7
-
But how do you test for something you can't even describe, much less duplicate? There are things out there we can't work with using physics as we know it because they're just totally unrecognizeable. If you don't believe me, go ask a physicist about singularities, or why we can describe things up to just short of the actual Big Bang (we're still off it by some small but very crucial fraction of a second). Anything that can happen once can happen more then once. True, we have no idea how to possibly make any of the exception-generating things work for us, but they're out there. They prove it can be done.
we can roughly....with quantum physics. problem is, that we have no clue how to make one theory as quantum physics decline the existance of singularities iirc.......but the great hope is this, in order to make the next step:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider)
Who says nothing travels faster than light? Maybe we just can't detect anything that travels faster than light simply because it travels faster than light. Who knows maybe dark matter or dark energy travel faster than light (which would be why they are dark??)
might be, but very unlikely. because IF WE ARE RIGHT SO FAR with our theories (and no trial gave us a hint so far, that we are wrong), this CANNOT BE!
-
Holy moly, that's quite a bit of technobabble on that Wiki page!
Other than that, I'm proud it's being built in switzerland ;7
-
me neither, so we should leave this discussion to the more specialized peoples and institutes out there.
we all here can only argue with half knowledge......
...
Dude, if I could clean the Internet of that... it would be a wasteland ;)
-
:lol:
-
Ah, the monthly Physics thread.
I have a couple of comments about this, so bear the horrible quote list.
NO.
Physical Laws are un-break-able and un-bend-able. They CAN NOT be modified.
As others pointed out, Physical Laws are only human invention, and model the nature to a certain degree. Other than that, I would advise caution when using words like "never", "cannot", etc. in the Physics context.
Usually proposed options include making the way between A and B shorter (warp drive, which actually has somewhat of a sound theoretical basis already, the problem is manipulating space-time continuum...), or creating a shorter alternative route between A and B (wormhole, or Einstein-Rosen bridge).
For some reason I always get the feeling that the scientists researching these topics are hardcore sci-fi show fans. I have said it before here, but there are problems to model certain everyday things, like the interaction between light and in some cases, even thermal distributions. With background like this, expanding up to the Universum-scale at this point should cause shuddering in the scientific community. Yeah, I don't have anything to back this up but the common sense. If liquid form water in -4 degrees of Celsius turning to ice in a split-second cannot be modelled, what is the probability of getting things right in the Universum-scale? Anyways, back to business.
Not impossible...just extremely difficult to the extreme. Some mathematicians and physicists calculated out what it would take to warp space time and jump from one location to another. Its doable...just needs allot of power.
Add engineers to that equation and then you'll see we are even further away. I have had some funny discussions with colleagues specialized in engineering about the requirements of the theoretical physicists; for example extremely dense matter with no mass (yes, this was once required).
Trying to flyl at the speed of light, you're own mass would kill you LONG before you reached it...now, if you somehow managed to nullify your mass (handwavium) then flying at the speed of light might actually be possible.
As Herra already said, this is a misconception. If you measure your mass inside the rocket that goes ~c (with no acceleration), it will be the same that you measured on Earth. But since I time by time tend to understand what people not-so-involved with Physics, I think you are meaning the effects of that rocket smashing to a extremely thick wall of lead. There you would see that the momentum that deformed the wall could be calculated from the old p=mv (this is a simplification of matters, I know), except this time mass should be modified with the formula Herra put up. For a person struck by a relativistic bullet, he would report getting hit by massive amounts of energy in any case, even though the mass of the bullet would be small.
For example, it's still not quite clear to me if Lorentz-contraction of relative co-ordinates is an observation or a real phenomenon... and, indeed, what is the difference between observation and reality. After all, don't we define reality by observations? Even the concept of simultaneity in relativity is heavily connected to observations due to signal speed limit of c - which can be interpreted, in a way, so that what you see on the night sky is simultaneous to this co-ordinate system. Or you could interpret our time as global time and make the distance-time corrections to each star's relative time to us.
For me, the only way to get out of that mess was to think that for humans there is no such thing as reality. Only observations in certain reference frames. The length of the metre in a rocket doing 0.99c is the simply the length of the metre. Some idiot is of course measuring that stick outside of the rocket in his own reference frame and measures that the length of that stick is less than one meter. Both are equally valid results. But here we assumed before hand that we that the length of the stick was one meter in some universal, absolutely true coordinate system, which doesn't exist, one of the prequisites of Special Relativity! This is probably one of the reasons Church objected to the relativity first since it seems to destroy the concept of God. The Lorentz transformations are simply coordinate system changes between frames, nothing more on that. Everything is relative! Or at least this is how I understand it.
One can see clearly in it why one can't go faster than light - the root can't be a negative number! Which means the (v/c)^2 can't be bigger than 1, which čeads to the conclusion that v < c
And at this point it doesn't take long for some Mathematician to point out the flaws in here. The sqrt-function can be defined for the complex numbers and thus v can be greater than c. The mathematics don't prevent it. Only observed world has a lack of FTL-objects. Unfortunately FTL travelling in our current world would also cause some difficulties with causality. Because causality is so much incorporated in humans, most of the Physicists would like to accept the spacetime wrapping as a way to go faster, rather than break the causality. Some times I wonder what funny surprises are there with the tachyons, if you cannot connect them to incidents, how can you measure them at the first place?
And please don't ask me to write the energy tensor metrics here, I can't. I basically know what happens but I can't use the maths... yet.
Quitter.
Here we have another interesting question: what exactly is space-time? It is a four-dimensional quantity with three space-like components (the world we observe) and time for the temporal-like component. But what is it, when you get to the bottom of the things?
However, if you consider the statement "each old theory must be part of the new on" it simply doesn't hold water. There are numerous old theories that have been abandoned because they were not replaced by more accurate theory, but because they were proven untrue. Heavier objects falling faster than lighter comes to mind, as well as geocentric models of universe. Or elements being fire, water, earth and air.
Careful with the interpretations of the old world. In most cases, the heavier object indeed falls faster than the lighter one, since the friction caused by air has to be taken account. That is an observation that unfortunately is true to certain amount. Some poindexter Galilei went out and dropped different iron balls(?) on the ground, demonstrating that the falling time is the same for both of them. Unfortunately, he didn't report results with a feather. If there is air involved, the feather would indeed take lots more time to hit the deck so to say. Of course, most people will now understand that air friction and gravity are separate effects, but during those times it might not have been so, and in practical life it was not necessary to separate them.
Geocentric model, well, that is pretty much what church said and if you didn't like it you lost your head. Then the elements fire, water, earth and air, well, there are some interesting medical things coming from the old element theories that govern the functions of organs inside human body. Most of that stuff is quite interesting actually, since as far as I know it is based on experiments done on humans...
That's similar logic as "5 billion flies can't be wrong - manure tastes and smells good!"
Well if 5 billion flies do that, then it is probably so for the flies. For humans, maybe not.
Also, in the scale of galaxy-wide travels, the end of the universe will be upon the travelers much faster than for those left behind.
And then there is a possibility that the expansion speed of the universe approaches c. Which would cause some trouble in returning back to home.
If you don't believe me, go ask a physicist about singularities, or why we can describe things up to just short of the actual Big Bang (we're still off it by some small but very crucial fraction of a second).
Personally I have some difficulties in believing this stuff. It is too far-fetched for my tastes and due to the difficulties in reversing the flow of time, it will be quite difficult to know how far back does that stuff exactly hold. It is an interesting research topic since this is quite difficult to verify experimentally, but still lots of money can be spent there.
For something easier task first, how did Sun (as we know it) form? I recall it was stated that it is probably a remnant of some supernova or a nova, but where are those blown-up stars now? And, what causes the sun-spots? Then there is a thing about the emitted energy of the sun, it increases within time to till certain event in the far future. Before there was less irradiance on the surface of the Earth, but the temperature levels were higher. I would be a little more optimistic about the Big Bang stuff if they replied a little bit more about the sun first.
Mika
-
However, due to time dilatation (or Lorentz-contraction, depends which way you want to view it), the time passed inside the ship would only be about 524 days. Or, from the perspective of the ship, they would observe the distance from Sol to Alpha Centauri being shortened due to Lorentz-contraction.
Is there any way to counter this effect so the same amount of time that passed inside the ship will pass outside of it (ie, so that 524 day trip to Alpha Centauri would actually take 524 days inside and outside)?
-
Before there was less irradiance on the surface of the Earth, but the temperature levels were higher
thats because of the much higher content of greenhouse gases in the athmosphere in the past.....
I recall it was stated that it is probably a remnant of some supernova or a nova, but where are those blown-up stars now?
easy to answer:
the star-remnants we are formed of were the product of so called hypernovas as the first and second-generation stars were HUGE! only few of them form also today (factor 100 times the sun and bigger). the remnant of such a star is -as far as we know- a stellar singularity. these we are not able to detect directly so far. thats all.....
what causes the sun-spots?
why are you asking this really easy things here!? magnetic fields of course....
Is there any way to counter this effect so the same amount of time that passed inside the ship will pass outside of it
also easy: NO
and btw: real sad that you do not speak german. then you could watch this:
http://www.br-online.de/br-alpha/alpha-centauri/index.xml (http://www.br-online.de/br-alpha/alpha-centauri/index.xml)
there a prof of physics explains VERY easy the complex things out there and how science work in general. great stuff!
unfortunately the archive of the approx. 200 files is down at the moment, as they are refurbishing it...
-
sunspots magnetic fields :wtf: thought it was slightly colder collections of gas that happen due to the random movement of the stars surface gasses
-
:eek2: think about your opinion......if you are right, why is there a sunspot cycle every 11 years?!
in truth its the depoling magnetic field of the sun......
the magnetic fields are causing a disturbance in the convection of the hot gases to the surface and therefore it is approx. 1000-2000°C colder than the surounding area. THATS a sunspot.....
look here:
(http://138.238.143.191/astronomy/Chaisson/AT416/IMAGES/AACHCZB0.JPG)
and here:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/atmosphere/sunspot_magnetism.html (http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/atmosphere/sunspot_magnetism.html)
-
also easy: NO
No as in there is no way to do that now or no as in it can never ever be done?
-
no, as it never can be done, because its nature......relativistic effects are nature......thats all.....
-
Hey look im not a math or phisics student or something but i happen to believe really strong that the part where Einstein laid out the basic rules and limitations regarding e=mc2 is wrong. From what i understood noone has actualy demonstrated in a real life experiment that the theori is correct. They are all just asumptions and best guess . And well until someone actualy shows me that it is imposible to reach the speed of light and beyond using real life devices i dont believe it.
This may sound stupid to most of you guis but quantum phisics from what i could read about seems to be shattering a lot of pshisical laws and limitations that everyone believed to be imposible. So my thinking is wait a while and then lets try and see if things are really that imposible.
-
sorry alpha, but its just WRONG what you say....
the results of einsteins therm is OBSERVED and MEASURED in countless trials scientists made....
furthermore this therm is the reason of our life.....i.e. the energy-production of the sun is based on that principle.....furthermore we can observe the bending of light during a sun eclipse very precisely.....of course it still a theory and no rule, but until we do not find any hint, that it is wrong with its predictions, it is the accepted therory.....
here the balbefish-translation of a german article about one of the latest trials made:
CLICK HERE (http://world.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astronews.com%2Fnews%2Fartikel%2F2005%2F12%2F0512-016.shtml)
-
Is there any way to counter this effect so the same amount of time that passed inside the ship will pass outside of it (ie, so that 524 day trip to Alpha Centauri would actually take 524 days inside and outside)?
Sure. Stick to slow subrelativistic velocities and time dialation isn't a concern at all. :P
-
Yeah, there's no way to do it with relativistic travel, that's why they've been saying we would need some form of FTL travel.
-
the results of einsteins therm is OBSERVED and MEASURED in countless trials scientists made....
Pretty much, yeah. AFAIK all aspects of special relativity have been confirmed in macroscopic scale. Like the non-linear increase of momentum as function of velocity, time dilatation and the energy-mass equivalence Some aspects of general relativity. The one thing subject to debate is the assumption that the speed of light in vacuum is constant everywhere and always, but that assumption has firm roots in Maxwell's electrodynamics that simply say there can be no frozen electromagnetic wave motion, which implies that one can not move at the same velocity as a photon does, which implies that speed of light is constant to all observers and so on...
Some aspects of general relativity have not been confirmed by direct observation (graviation radiation hasn't been successfully detected - yet - and the part where mass forms singularities is debatable at best since by definition, things behind event horizon can't be observed by normal means) but most of the theory corresponds to the observed reality so well that the rest of the implications are plausible and can be considered probable. The most problematic thing about general relativity is, like Mika pointed out previously, the exact nature of space-time continuum and the way energy/mass interacts with it.*
What comes to quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics, they are the most accurate descriptions of matter and all the interactions save gravity, and they work to insane accuracy. The basics behind some quantum effects are subject to interpretation, though - there are two major schools on interpreting the statistical nature of quantum phenomena: The Copenhagen interpretation, and the multiverse interpretation.
The Copenhagen interpretation sees particles as wave forms that can interfere with themselves and define the probability of the particle being detected at any given location. In for example basic interference experiment, the single particle's waveform passes through both holes and forms an interference pattern on itself, and the detection of the particle becomes more probable on certain parts of the detector, resulting in interference pattern. Whenever a particle is observed at location XYZT, the waveform of the particle ceases to exist (or collapses) partially or entirely. In case of photons, entirely; in case of particles that aren't destroyed upon observation, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents the possibility of aquiring the knowledge of particles' location and momentum at arbitrary accuracy, so the particles' waveforms never collapse completely...
The multiverse interpretation (or many-worlds interpretation as it's known in Wikipedia) considers the interference (among other phenomena) to be caused by the particles interfering with their corresponding particles in parallel universes that happen ever so slightly differently. While it sounds slightly more outlandish at first impression, recent experiments seem to suggest that this interpretation is, in fact, the more accurate and probable (and explains more things somewhat better) than the Copenhagen interpretation... :shaking:
However, the question of whether these models actually depict what happens in reality(ies) or just offer interpretations for the models can be considered irrelevant in physics.
*space-time continuum is rather interesting concept when you can visualize what happens when the geometry changes from euclidian to non-euclidian.
The terms that general relativity uses to calculate the effects of mass and energy to space time speak for themselves - energy tensor implies that energy causes some kind of tension to change the geometry of space-time. From this it can be deduced that space-time has a native, or "zero-tension" state to which the tension caused by mass and energy can be compared. Most likely, this would be the euclidian state of space-time - three straight lines of infinite length can be placed perpendicular to each other in euclidian space-time, and they stay perpendicular for their entire length. As far as time goes, it passes the fastest in euclidian state of space-time.
When tension is applied to space, pretty much similar things happen as you apply tension to a stretchy surface. In case of a surface, it's area increases due to stretching. In case of space and time... the volume increases and speed of time decreases realtive to non-euclidian space. Of course, that's the case of positive curvature caused by the tension from positive energy/mass. Negative energy would likely cause negative curvature... which, strangely enough, would also increase the volume of the space locally.
In layman's terms, the tension applied to space and time essentially stretches each space axis and time axis, which creates more space and time.
As a result, if you for example take 1x1x1 metres big box on euclidian space, it's volume is exactly one cubic metre. However, if you take the same box close to a heavy object, you can fit more than thousand litres of water into the box because the slightly stretched time and space add some volume to the insides of the box.
This leads to extrelemy interesting questions such as "how much volume is inside a black hole's event horizon?" and "how long is the distance from event horizon's edge to the postulated singularity at the center point?"... and the answers are IMHO even more intersting. Personally, my intuition tells me that the answer to the latter question is rather simple - the distance is infinite. This can also be interpreted so that event horizons don't HAVE a center point... which, in turn, means that every point inside event horizon is equal in terms of being the center point. Which would kinda make singularities obsolete. If there's no center point, where would the matter accumulate into singularity? Where inside the horizon would the singularity be? As for the volume question... now that's a trickier one. Most likely finite, approaching some value depending on the total energy inside the horizon.
Also, as I told earlier, my intuition tells me that inertia is a direct result of the space-time's ability to stretch under tension, since tension implies that energy is needed and stored into changes of the space-time's state of geometry...
Also, my intuition is known to have been wrong. :p
-
the results of einsteins therm is OBSERVED and MEASURED in countless trials scientists made....
Pretty much, yeah. AFAIK all aspects of special relativity have been confirmed in macroscopic scale. Like the non-linear increase of momentum as function of velocity, time dilatation and the energy-mass equivalence Some aspects of general relativity. The one thing subject to debate is the assumption that the speed of light in vacuum is constant everywhere and always, but that assumption has firm roots in Maxwell's electrodynamics that simply say there can be no frozen electromagnetic wave motion, which implies that one can not move at the same velocity as a photon does, which implies that speed of light is constant to all observers and so on...
Some aspects of general relativity have not been confirmed by direct observation (graviation radiation hasn't been successfully detected - yet - and the part where mass forms singularities is debatable at best since by definition, things behind event horizon can't be observed by normal means) but most of the theory corresponds to the observed reality so well that the rest of the implications are plausible and can be considered probable. The most problematic thing about general relativity is, like Mika pointed out previously, the exact nature of space-time continuum and the way energy/mass interacts with it.*
What comes to quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics, they are the most accurate descriptions of matter and all the interactions save gravity, and they work to insane accuracy. The basics behind some quantum effects are subject to interpretation, though - there are two major schools on interpreting the statistical nature of quantum phenomena: The Copenhagen interpretation, and the multiverse interpretation.
The Copenhagen interpretation sees particles as wave forms that can interfere with themselves and define the probability of the particle being detected at any given location. In for example basic interference experiment, the single particle's waveform passes through both holes and forms an interference pattern on itself, and the detection of the particle becomes more probable on certain parts of the detector, resulting in interference pattern. Whenever a particle is observed at location XYZT, the waveform of the particle ceases to exist (or collapses) partially or entirely. In case of photons, entirely; in case of particles that aren't destroyed upon observation, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents the possibility of aquiring the knowledge of particles' location and momentum at arbitrary accuracy, so the particles' waveforms never collapse completely...
The multiverse interpretation (or many-worlds interpretation as it's known in Wikipedia) considers the interference (among other phenomena) to be caused by the particles interfering with their corresponding particles in parallel universes that happen ever so slightly differently. While it sounds slightly more outlandish at first impression, recent experiments seem to suggest that this interpretation is, in fact, the more accurate and probable (and explains more things somewhat better) than the Copenhagen interpretation... :shaking:
However, the question of whether these models actually depict what happens in reality(ies) or just offer interpretations for the models can be considered irrelevant in physics.
*space-time continuum is rather interesting concept when you can visualize what happens when the geometry changes from euclidian to non-euclidian.
The terms that general relativity uses to calculate the effects of mass and energy to space time speak for themselves - energy tensor implies that energy causes some kind of tension to change the geometry of space-time. From this it can be deduced that space-time has a native, or "zero-tension" state to which the tension caused by mass and energy can be compared. Most likely, this would be the euclidian state of space-time - three straight lines of infinite length can be placed perpendicular to each other in euclidian space-time, and they stay perpendicular for their entire length. As far as time goes, it passes the fastest in euclidian state of space-time.
When tension is applied to space, pretty much similar things happen as you apply tension to a stretchy surface. In case of a surface, it's area increases due to stretching. In case of space and time... the volume increases and speed of time decreases realtive to non-euclidian space. Of course, that's the case of positive curvature caused by the tension from positive energy/mass. Negative energy would likely cause negative curvature... which, strangely enough, would also increase the volume of the space locally.
In layman's terms, the tension applied to space and time essentially stretches each space axis and time axis, which creates more space and time.
As a result, if you for example take 1x1x1 metres big box on euclidian space, it's volume is exactly one cubic metre. However, if you take the same box close to a heavy object, you can fit more than thousand litres of water into the box because the slightly stretched time and space add some volume to the insides of the box.
This leads to extrelemy interesting questions such as "how much volume is inside a black hole's event horizon?" and "how long is the distance from event horizon's edge to the postulated singularity at the center point?"... and the answers are IMHO even more intersting. Personally, my intuition tells me that the answer to the latter question is rather simple - the distance is infinite. This can also be interpreted so that event horizons don't HAVE a center point... which, in turn, means that every point inside event horizon is equal in terms of being the center point. Which would kinda make singularities obsolete. If there's no center point, where would the matter accumulate into singularity? Where inside the horizon would the singularity be? As for the volume question... now that's a trickier one. Most likely finite, approaching some value depending on the total energy inside the horizon.
Also, as I told earlier, my intuition tells me that inertia is a direct result of the space-time's ability to stretch under tension, since tension implies that energy is needed and stored into changes of the space-time's state of geometry...
Also, my intuition is known to have been wrong. :p
Truth is stranger than fiction :eek2:
-
This leads to extrelemy interesting questions such as "how much volume is inside a black hole's event horizon?" and "how long is the distance from event horizon's edge to the postulated singularity at the center point?"... and the answers are IMHO even more intersting. Personally, my intuition tells me that the answer to the latter question is rather simple - the distance is infinite. This can also be interpreted so that event horizons don't HAVE a center point... which, in turn, means that every point inside event horizon is equal in terms of being the center point. Which would kinda make singularities obsolete. If there's no center point, where would the matter accumulate into singularity? Where inside the horizon would the singularity be? As for the volume question... now that's a trickier one. Most likely finite, approaching some value depending on the total energy inside the horizon.
i also had these kind of thoughts. what is, when u are inside a singularity. you would not be able to determine, where is the centre of it....
so this led myself to the thought:
what is, if we ARE inside a singularity. the whole universi is one singularity. we are not able to pinpoint the centre of our universe, because there is none. every object around us excapes with the same velocity at each distance we look at.....
what is, if every black hole is new universe inside the universe it was made.....
but such thoughts are again si-fi because noone can proof them ;)
-
laws of nature for THIS dimension, if there are multiple dimensions whose to say one of them dosent have a c > c current?
-
ya know, there is always the multiverse. the only problem is that the universe you pop into isn't exactly the same one you came from.
-
i also had these kind of thoughts. what is, when u are inside a singularity. you would not be able to determine, where is the centre of it....
so this led myself to the thought:
what is, if we ARE inside a singularity. the whole universi is one singularity. we are not able to pinpoint the centre of our universe, because there is none. every object around us excapes with the same velocity at each distance we look at.....
what is, if every black hole is new universe inside the universe it was made.....
but such thoughts are again si-fi because noone can proof them ;)
You are not the first person I've heard suggest this, and I've been wondering about it myself a lot lately. There was a recent article in Scientific American that pointed out that what with the expansion of the universe continuing to accelerate, there will come a time when the inhabitants of this galaxy will be completely unable to see any other galaxies because the universe will have expanded to the point where they are too far away to ever be seen. The crux of the arguement is that current observations suggest there is a very simple relationship to how fast objects in space are moving away from us. The velocity of the object is directly proportional to its distance from us. So, objects that are farther away are moving away from us faster than objects closer to us. The practical upshot is that the expansion of the universe does not appear to be limited to c, so it is possible for objects to receed so far from us that we will never be able to see them. It is very likely that some parts of the universe already have.
Eventually, it will get to the point where everything that wasn't close enough to be gravitationally tied to our galaxy will recede so far we cannot see it at all. The article termed this limited sight as an "event horizon," and the term does fit. It is like the universe is surrounded by a gigantic singularity that, rather than being a single point in the middle, is surounding the entire universe, causing runaway expansion. Well...? Is that really any more far fetched than any other explanation for inflation? Could we be inside a singularity ourselves?
-
I think you're reading too much into the use of the term 'event horizon'. There's no singularity involved, and certainly no suggestion of a singularity 'surrounding the entire universe'.
A singularity is a place where physical law breaks down. We understand the physical laws of the universe at large pretty well.
As for discussion of other dimensions where the speed of light is greater -- other dimensions can be (and are) described mathematically, and there's nothing yet to suggest that C is variant. Similarly, other universes in a hypothetical multiverse have also been mathematically described, and they would be bound by much the same physical laws.
-
Well i never expected to be correct anyway . The only reason why i kinda refuse to believe that the theory must be wrong somewhere is because it sets a boundry for humans that at least for now we can not overcome. And well i just refuse to accept that.
I mean i refuse to accept that there is such a barrier that would prove insurmountable to us humans. There is almost nothing we cant do if we have the will and the way.
So for now im just gooing to say there has yet to be invented the fizics and math that alows us humans to travel at FTL speeds. And i remain optimistic about the fact that sometime in this century humans might discover a way to travel at FTL speeds. Yeah i know how this sounds but considering the quantum leaps in tech. these days and computing power it is not irational for me to actualy hope for such a thing.
-
Well i never expected to be correct anyway . The only reason why i kinda refuse to believe that the theory must be wrong somewhere is because it sets a boundry for humans that at least for now we can not overcome. And well i just refuse to accept that.
I mean i refuse to accept that there is such a barrier that would prove insurmountable to us humans. There is almost nothing we cant do if we have the will and the way.
So for now im just gooing to say there has yet to be invented the fizics and math that alows us humans to travel at FTL speeds. And i remain optimistic about the fact that sometime in this century humans might discover a way to travel at FTL speeds. Yeah i know how this sounds but considering the quantum leaps in tech. these days and computing power it is not irational for me to actualy hope for such a thing.
QFT, Although we'll never know, because it will happen in the depths of some top secret goverment facility :\
-
who knows maybe they spill the beans and the world finds out. OR perhaps they leave thyr top secret documents on bench or library or something. We might just get lucky you know. also who say they havent already done it in some rudimentary way and we just havent been told before because they are building uber ships of doom on mars or something???
Dont look at me like that im not a retard im just mentaly inconsistent.
-
oh please....no conspiracy-**** here pls.....don´t take "stargate" to serious ;)
of course we can HOPE to find such a FTL-engine, but if i should bet money on it, i would choose the other side.....
-
I believe there is only one constant trought all that exist (all universes) - math.
If it exists, it can be counted (since it's there and has SOME properties).
1+1=2 everywhere.
-
I agree with Trashman on this point. Although technically, when adding velocities, 1 + 1 = slightly less than two...relativity does funny things.
Another point that worries me regarding event horizons -- what if we can't access the information we need to understand the universe? What if it's already lost?
As people have mentioned, in a long while we'll be unable to see light from other galaxies, and we'll believe our galaxy is the entire universe -- since there'll be no way to observe, reach, or interact with others. And we'll be perfectly right to think so.
What if we're already in that situation regarding...something else? Some vital clue? Maybe human knowledge is actually, physically limited.
-
oh please....no conspiracy-**** here pls....
Short of totally cracking the military networks it is hard to say what they are hiding.
-
Gary McKinnon, also known as Solo, (born in Glasgow in 1966) is a British hacker accused by the United States of perpetrating the "biggest military computer hack of all time.
(...)
The computer networks he is accused of cracking include networks owned by NASA (although these were not password protected), the US Army, US Navy, Department of Defense, and the US Air Force.
(...)
McKinnon remained at liberty without restriction for three years until June 2005 (after the UK had implemented a new extradition treaty with the US [which the US congress has not ratified]) when he became subject to bail conditions including a requirement to sign in at his local police station every evening, and to remain at his home address at night. In addition he was banned from using a computer with access to the Internet.
(...)
McKinnon has admitted in many public statements to unauthorised access of computer systems in the United States including those mentioned in the United States indictment. He claims his motivation, drawn from a statement made before the Washington Press Club on May 9, 2001 by the "The Disclosure Project", was to find evidence of UFOs, antigravity technology, and the government suppression of "Free Energy", all of which he claims to have proven through his actions.
In his interview with the BBC he also claimed that "The Disclosure Project" says there is "extra-terrestrial in origin and [they've] captured spacecraft and reverse engineered it." He also claimed to have downloaded a low-resolution image of "something not man-made" and "cigar shaped" floating above the northern hemisphere. He said that unfortunately he did not manage to get a screenshot or recording of the image because he was "bedazzled" to see the image, could not remember the capture function in the software RemotelyAnywhere, and that he was "cut off" from his connection.
Horrible fate bolded and increased in size.
My own interpretation is that he's just good enough to get into the systems but stupid enough to get caught and is trying to gain media attention to save him from extradiction and being stuffed into Gitmo.
Of course, it would be AWSOME if it were real. :D
EDIT: LOL WUT part coloured red. :lol: I mean, wtf...?
-
That truely is a horrible fate. I mean, I'll take prison should I ever do something to deserve it, but dammit, I need my internet!
-
We all do...we all do
(http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2007/09/internet_addict.jpg)
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a300/tescosuicide/ALa2/ALa3/internet_addiction.jpg)
(http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-00-01/personal-lives/addict_varvel.gif)
-
:lol:
(http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/Not%20addicted.jpg)
-
There0s no fridge :eek2:?!
-
(http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-00-01/personal-lives/addict_varvel.gif)
My wife would say that this is me!!! :D :lol:
-
Just something related to topic:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar08/6051
This sounds a little strange for me, at least. I would suspect another mechanism here causing the black hole effect than explained in the article - I would go so far and say calling that analogical to black hole is a misnomer. But, lets see when they have published something about it. It might be so that what was written was not an accurate description of events happening there.
Regarding sun spots, I'm actually after the reason for the 11 year cycle... didn't find that from the web page.
The sun is speculated to have formed from the remnanments of an explosion of some hypernova. Saying that we cannot detect the original star that blew up since it is a singularity and cannot thus be detected is handwaving at best, if you ask me. Why? The hypothesis cannot be tested by default. And according to my understanding of Physics, that original blown up star should be quite close to us in the astronomical terms. But teaching the birth of solar system as an absolute truth in the college (it is much more absolute in those books IIRC) is a little bit off.
Mika
-
Heh, I was just subscribed to Spectrum until this last week when my IEEE registration expired.
-
Short of totally cracking the military networks it is hard to say what they are hiding.
the milkman conspiracy
-
This sounds a little strange for me, at least. I would suspect another mechanism here causing the black hole effect than explained in the article - I would go so far and say calling that analogical to black hole is a misnomer.
It's got an event horizon that traps light. That's all they claim it does. Isn't that a pretty decent analogy?
The sun is speculated to have formed from the remnanments of an explosion of some hypernova. Saying that we cannot detect the original star that blew up since it is a singularity and cannot thus be detected is handwaving at best
Wait, who says that? That it's a singularity and can't be detected? I would think we can't detect because it blew up a while back, thereby allowing the Sun to form. No singularity required, right?
-
Wait, who says that? That it's a singularity and can't be detected? I would think we can't detect because it blew up a while back, thereby allowing the Sun to form. No singularity required, right?
This is from IceyJones:
easy to answer:
the star-remnants we are formed of were the product of so called hypernovas as the first and second-generation stars were HUGE! only few of them form also today (factor 100 times the sun and bigger). the remnant of such a star is -as far as we know- a stellar singularity. these we are not able to detect directly so far. thats all.....
Also, what is the measurement result that tells us those stars were actually larger?
It's got an event horizon that traps light. That's all they claim it does. Isn't that a pretty decent analogy?
Without seeing the paper I cannot really say anything about it. Depends on from your point of view. For starters, would you call a well polished diamond analogous to a black hole?
Mika
-
i knew that when i started this thread my eye's would bleed...i was right..
-
What IceyJones was saying is that the remnant of these supermassive stars exploding is a black hole. Thus we can't directly detect it. Indirect detection of black holes is quite possible. The model that states that our sun is made from the remnants of past stellar detonations is quite solid and has withstood a lot of tests.
I don't believe a well-polished diamond is analogous because you can see it. It doesn't have an event horizon.
-
right.....our star must be a second or even third generation star because of its high metal content, as the first stars were made of hydrogen and only very little helium...the metals in our sun MUST be the product of the first stars exploding somewhere out there.....
it is also fact that newer stars formed out there have always a little bit more metals inside than older ones......so heavier materials than helium are generated in the stars and are contaminating the surrounding area.....its some kind of recyling out there......
each generation has more metal inside.....(and remember.....ALL meterails more havy than helium are metals in the wording of space science).....