The Harlequin Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 [font=gothic][color=crimson]If it were that simple, civilisation as we know would fall down around our ears.[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 You people don't seem to see the big picture. This space station is researching life support systems and deep space travel and is advancing very fast. Within a hundred years we should have faster than light travel, weather it be massive arrays of IPD's or something out of star trek. There are simple formulas that bypass E=Mc2. Once we have easy ways of this planet there shouldn't be land disputes any more, unlimited resources and allot of open space to explore. Just think at x1 the speed of light you could get to Alpha Centuri in 5 years and the closest planets in 6, and if you get x2 the speed of light AC in about 3 years and if you get x10 that?s the closes planet in a few weeks or even minutes. I?m not a trekke either, if you?re wondering. But if you have a look there is enough tech out there to build a deep space vessel now. [Most of something like that would be using experimental equipment.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 [color=royalblue]I don't know where you're getting it from, but it is [i]physically impossible[/i] to travel faster than light. The only way to travel faster is using some kind of subspace travel, like wormholes...and even that is merely a theory at this point. But I certainly support having the International Space Station up there.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 James for one there is no real way of knowing if we can go faster until we try. But the olny bundary I can see that we can't pass now is faster than matter and we don't know how fast that it. But again there would be ways around that. e-nv t6 T= -- /(x) 2 (--) (6) E=mc2 That my friend is supposedly one of the formula to bypass e=mc2. That?s if e=mc2 is even rite. [Sorry for its crudeness but it's hard to put formulas in to this.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 [color=royalblue]It's not a matter of not knowing 'till we try...we know that it is a physical impossibility. If there were a formula to bypass this limitation, it would have been highly publicized by now.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan L Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]James for one there is no real way of knowing if we can go faster until we try. But the olny bundary I can see that we can't pass now is faster than matter and we don't know how fast that it. But again there would be ways around that. e-nv t6 T= -- /(x) 2 (--) (6) E=mc2 That my friend is supposedly one of the formula to bypass e=mc2. That?s if e=mc2 is even rite. [Sorry for its crudeness but it's hard to put formulas in to this.] [/B][/QUOTE] Don't get me started on relativity... I've already been through a similar argument before... and looking at that formula the only thing I can think is ''... what the hell??''... can you explain what's going on there, because as far as i know, it could mean anything... E= mc squared can not be bypassed. E= mc sqaured is the formula which states that matter has a certain energy, and energy has a certain mass. You can't just bypass an object (mass), so it is weightless, nor can you bypass a flame (energy-ish) so it doesn't burn you, so you can not bypass relativity. there are probably ways to get from one place to another, faster than the fundamental limit of the speed of light, but it can not be done simply by moving faster than light. Information, it is now known, can travel instantaneously, via a principle of quantum physics known as entanglement. In relativistic physics, this should not be possible. But bear in mind that quantum physics generally only applies to very small particles, on the atomic level and smaller. It is possible that matter may be able to travel through a wormhole. It is hard to visualise how this may happen because we percieve the universe in 3D, and it is hard to imagine how the universe may twist and bend around us, so a wormhole could send us to a different part altogether. Some scientists believe that there are more than 20 (I don't know the amount) dimensions in the universe, rather than just the 3 that we see and the 1 (time) that we progress through. By the way, you're 2 years older than my brother. at that age, even I naively believed that such a thing may be possible, but now, after studying relativity at university, I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Explain to me then and use examples of things that you have seen trying to go faster than the speed of light why we can?t? You might have heard of a theory called zenos' paradox? It is perfectly logical and uses physics, BUT still it is bypassed every time a second hand passes the minute hand. And no James, if there were formula's that prove you can go faster than light they would not be highly publicised. I don?t even think they would be recognised by the scientific community. I also have to say even though Deus_Ex_Machina obversely knows allot more than me. It's people like you that are so set in current physic?s that holt the flow of new ideas and theories. All theory?s can be wrong. I seem to remember hearing that the theory of relativity has been revised a few times. [I]We have not tried so therefore we do not know.[/I] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B] And no James, if there were formula's that prove you can go faster than light they would not be highly publicised. I don?t even think they would be recognised by the scientific community. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=royalbule]Of course it would be. Don't be so foolish. We're not talking about a religious community or a political community here -- science is based upon sharing information with others so that it can be held to scrutiny and ultimately, so that better results and information can be provided. There are no formulas (no apostrophe) that relate to travelling faster than the speed of light that have been proven. If that were the case, then we could kiss a lot of what we know about physics goodbye -- this isn't some simple formula, you're talking about a massive shift in the knowledge of physics, here. If you can provide me with references to [i]where[/i] I might find this so-called "formula", then I will be more inclined to believe you. If you are infact correct, then there should be dozens of factual scientific websites out there which support this concept. If you can point me to any one of them, I will be grateful -- but until I see something factual and worthwhile, what you are talking about at the moment is pretty meaningles when compared to current physics knowledge.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Don't snap at me James, I was only answering your question. There are many formulas that "say" that you can go faster and many that "say" you can't. Have a look your self. You do know how to use a search engine don't you? I do know what the implications of any thing being proven are. You could use for example about 100 years ago the proof that bacteria existed, it changed allot in the world of since. (Well it did over the time until now, at the time they didn't really care at the time.) Oh and James until you show me a PHD or some other accreditation on this subject I will only be corrected by some one who knows what they are talking about. You James clearly do not. [Quote]Of course it would be. Don't be so foolish. We're not talking about a religious community or a political community here -James[/Quote] A political community would explain it perfectly. Example - [Since you always want one.] The theory on black holes was not recognised straight away it took about 50 years for it to be. Another interesting thing, there is a whole mathematical theory based on the presumption that parallel lines meet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 [color=royalblue]Calm yourself. I'm not snapping at you. I'm merely saying that you need to provide accredited sources for this information. Since you haven't been able to do that, then there is no factual basis for me to believe your claims. It's all very well to shrug it off and say "you know how to use a search engine", but I want to see where [i]you[/i] got the information. That way, I'm able to determine for myself if I feel the source is credible. I don't profess to be an expert on this area, but some of your comments indicate that you perhaps don't really approach the discussion in the right way. Case in point: You said that there are alternative theories which say that it's possible to travel faster than light -- having theories is fine...even if they aren't proven theories. But then you turn around and suggest that they are [i]totally true[/i] and that I'm somehow foolish for disregarding them. So in that sense, you have to make up your mind. There are many theories about many things -- the theory of wormholes, for example, has some basis in fact. However, that doesn't mean that it is necessarily [i]possible[/i] in reality to travel through wormholes. The same goes for this theory of travelling faster than light. If you said to me "it's just a theory and it isn't proven" (thus meaning that it doesn't contradict conventional physics), that'd be fine. But you can't tell me that I'm wrong in saying that it is impossible to travel faster than light, just because there are "theories" out there. Current physics tells us that light is the fastest travelling matter in existence (thus the phrase "light years"). Now, what you are suggesting would be a [i]major[/i] change to the entire notion of physics as we know it. And given that the current model of physics is well proven in everyday life, I think it is just a [i]little[/i] outrageous to suggest that objects [i]can[/i] travel faster than light, if we know as a matter of fact, that they can't. Presenting an alternative theory is fine and good, as long as you understand that whatever you read/heard was probably a pretty far out theory with not much basis in reality. If you read my posts clearly and if you comprehend what I am saying, you'll probably find that I'm being pretty reasonable.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Okay I can accept that, I will try to be clearer in the future. But don't people see the common sense in this? What is the simplest form of matter? Matter! Not light. Doesn?t any one see that? Simple common sense tells any one that. And don't say common sense is wrong, were did that theory of gravity come from. Common sense! And any one who has researched this topic please keep tachyons (spelling?) out of this, other wise it would get very complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Fett Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 I think this whole conversation is very interesting, but where are you getting these facts Cloricus? I would be inclined to believe you if you could give me a book title, web address, or any other type of reference that would confirm what you are saying. I think that Humanity should colonize as many worlds as it can, to avoid having a single event (plague, asteroid impact, etc.) from destroying all of humanity at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Harlequin Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 [font=gothic][color=crimson]Matter is too open a term Cloricus. It doesn't really define anything, except "Stuff that exists", which is as open as it gets. The smallest particle that has been proven to exist is a sub-sub atomic particle, either quark or quork, depends on who you ask. Light photons are typically simpler than your average atoms. Normal atoms are the typical full form of existence. Sub atomics don't really exist on their own properly, it requires a full atom for stability. Photons are less complex than atoms, and are thus a simpler form of matter. If gravity came from common sense, why didn't the Ancients realise it? Oh, of course they knew they were more or less stuck to the ground, but they didn't know why. You never really know something unless you know why. It's just a theory ithout backing. (I'd like to exclude Bernouli's Principle, or whatever his name is, from that idea. His theory just can't be proven for some reason.)[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Matter in its simplest form, Matter. "Bernoulli's Principle" I see nothing wrong with this theory, explain it's relevance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Harlequin Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 [font=gothic][color=crimson]Bernoulli's Principle is the principle that states that moving air creates an area of relative low pressure. This has been proven too many times to count, yet nobody has been able to explain why. (Or at least, not when I last did Physics. If someone can correct me here, I'd be grateful.)[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Harlequin this theory has been explained numerus times, in classes since year 8. Have a think about it and try and think of the answer, it is very simple. Failing this ask me for the answer or you?re since teacher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zidane11 Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 I think that we should spend money for it but I wouldn't be willing. Maybe I would if I was Bill Gates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Harlequin Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 [font=gothic][color=crimson]Oh? Why don't you explain why moving air creates an area of low pressure then? Considering it was my science teacher who claimed that it could not be explained, I don't think asking him would work. Zidane11, you have just typified the average rightwing consumer attitude of this day and age. Everybody wants things done, and everybody wants someone else to do it. Everybody wants to be richer, more powerful etc. [/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 You have just done the same Harlequin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Harlequin Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 [font=gothic][color=crimson]Avoiding the question, with something that doesn't make sense, in an irrelevant context... Considering the good chance that Cloricus's answer will be irrelevant or useless, does anyone else have an answer for me?[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Harlequin its creates lower pressure because there is less air filling the space and the fast moving air prevents new air correcting the low pressure. I could ask my since teacher for a more in-depth explanation which I could relay to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilac oranges Posted June 16, 2002 Share Posted June 16, 2002 well i think we should let the americans and russians build the space station cause it just toys for the boys and its stopping them playing with nuclear war heads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Harlequin Posted June 16, 2002 Share Posted June 16, 2002 [font=gothic][color=crimson]Actually Cloricus, all you did was explain what happens. I knew that already. I asked why. Air isn't ionized you know. And it quite often works the same why as a wave. And Lilac Oranges, that remark was basically meaningless. Once the get it built, they'll be able to fire warheads, nuclear or otherwise, from the space station.[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted June 16, 2002 Share Posted June 16, 2002 Harlequin, if they fire a warhead capable of space to ground flight it would knock the ISS in to a spin that it could never recover from and go off in to space. You should know that, and if didn't don't dismiss out the people's remarks. They are as valid, if not more than yours. I will get back to you on the theory; I have some reading to do. You could be right though I will ask around some friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Harlequin Posted June 16, 2002 Share Posted June 16, 2002 [font=gothic][color=crimson]Stabilisers Cloricus, Stabilisers. Considering just who made the remark, I'm surprised your sticking up for it.[/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now