ISS - Freedom

[Guest cloricus]

I am surprised to.
I don't know what star trek you are addicted to but we do [I][B]NOT[/I][/B] have tech that good.
Even boosters wouldn't be accurate enough.

Oh the answer to your question - "There is less air."

Let?s just say I have friends with PhD?s on there walls.

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]I know we don't but we will. I'm sure someone will see to that.

And as for the theory bit, that doesn't explain anything. There is less air, obviously, that's why there is low pressure. But why is there less air? If your trying to say that the moving air carries the other air along with it, you'd be wrong, because air doesn't work that way. So what are you trying to say?[/font][/color]

[Guest cloricus]

Backing down from a comment, that's not like you, you keep arguing until the other person gets pissed off and leaves and go on to think you won.


As for you feeble attempt to say I'm wrong about that answer, I took the liberty of asking toughs questions.

There is low pressure because there is less air; there is less air because the majority of the air is dragged down.
Take for example an aerofoil - As it moves though the air, air is sucked down leaving less air on top creating low pressure and thus lifts.

If you would like any more details I can ask, but so far I have given the answer in a very simple way so you may try to understand it.

Do remember that my friend has accreditation in this field and all you have is a B+ in year 9.

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]For Christ's sake Cloricus. All you've done is repeat yourself several times over. What I've asked is why the air responds to outside manipulation at all. There is no logical reason why it should. The person I got this information from completed a course at uni in physics, and I'm probably going to trust him over you. And I didn't get a B+ either.[/font][/color]

[Guest cloricus]

A B-?

Ask a question and I will try and find the answer. State it clearly what you want to know.

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]An A of course. What else.

What I want to know is this. An area of moving air creates an area of relative low pressure around it. Now, even if the moving air does drag the surrounding air along with it, which it doesn't, and shouldn't, why doesn't the air surrounding the surrounding air fill the space. Alternatively, if the air is not dragged along, which it isn't, which means it is still there, why the hell is there an area of low pressure? Is the density affected? The friction between atoms? What?[/font][/color]

[Guest cloricus]

It only creates an area of lower pressure on top of it.
It does not drag any air along with it, where did you get that idea?
He asks if you understand what "pressure, high pressure and low pressure are?"

He also says there is a simple experiment you can try at the beach next time you go.
Get a surfboard of some description - or even a plank of wood.
Move it through a wave and observe how the water moves around it and how the board reacts.
This should answer your questions. If not look it up in a since textbook.

Now can we get back to the subject?
If you would like to keep arguing the point PM me, but it is getting old.

[Ravenstorture]

[color=darkgreen][font=gothic]Ahem. That's startling to see, Cloricus, but I think I know where you picked it up.... Here is a question to get everyone back on track:
What is the International Space Station?
Why was it created?
What function does it perform?
Is it beneficial for the world in general, or is it just another stupid stunt pulled by NASA and their "connections" to establish a better reputation on the space scene, and to claim yet another bit of space to shove warheads into?
What makes it international?[/font][/color]

[Guest cloricus]

Damn it!
It is not possible at this time or the foreseeable future to fire a space to ground missile of the ISS or anywhere near it!
It would shake the station to peaces.
We just don't have the technology of the methods of doing it.

At the moment the space station can only take small hits from space rocks let alone a 3-ton (or how ever big the rocket would be) object being fired off it.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ravenstorture [/i]
[B][color=darkgreen][font=gothic]
What makes it international?[/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]There are something like 20 countries involved in the project. That's what makes it International.

The different modules are being developed and constructed by different nations. I think the most recent module loaded onto the station came from Japan. There are also French and German modules being prepared for launch within the next two years, as well.

In terms of launching warheads from it, well...that's just another silly conspiracy theory. It's like saying that the moon landing was a hoax.

Given current technology, it would be impossible to launch warheads from the station. The force from launching a warhead would actually push the station out of its orbit -- remember, the station has nothing to "grip" onto and thus, the major force of a rocket would push the station out into space and it would never be seen again. I'd have thought that was just common sense. :)

Furthermore, there is the issue of it being International -- the fact that many countries are involved. If the USA were putting warheads on the station, I seriously doubt that other countries (especially European countries) would support the project. It's all pretty much common sense, on this point.[/color]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo] The tone of this thread is very hostile in many of the posts. I am not a mod, and I rarely get involved in these situations, but please do not curse at another person because he or she does not share your view point, and please do not use phrases like "you just don't understand", without explaining the message you are trying to convey.

Now that my rant is over...I believe that it is essential to fund space exploration. There are too many problems that we, as a planet, will have to address in the near future about the available living space on earth, the available natural resources that we are rapidly depleteing, and the available growing space for crops on. If we have not found a way to efficently deal with these issues in the next hundred years or so, then I feel a great war will be inevitable.

Why space exploration may not be the final solution to any of these problems, it is definatly worth while to explore all of our options. If speedy and efficent space transportation can be created or if a large spacestation or colony can be built and sustained then humankind could have a solution to some of are more complex problems.[/color]

[Dan L]

Wow. A lot of posts since I last 'appeared' a week and a bit ago.

The speed of light is not the absolute fastest that any matter can go, in theory. There is a perfectly sound theory that some matter can, and does, go faster. Think of a hill. You need a certain energy to travel at a certain speed, which has been known for a while, but we always assumed that this amount of energy increases uniformly with speed. In fact, what happens is that the amount of energy increases exponentially, and reaches innfinity at the speed of light. Only things with no mass whatsoever, such as light, can travel at this speed. However, on the other side, it starts to go down again. However, the hill is actually more of a mountain, the peak of which has infinite energy. Theoretical particles can travel faster than light, however the energy involved uses imaginary numbers- a very abstract, but useful principle, which has little relevance in day to day life, The most important term in imaginary numbers is '[i]i[/i]' which is the square root of -1.

If such particles do exist, then they would percieve the universe in a completely different manner. Rather than having to gain energy in order to go faster and reach the speed of light, an increase in energy would actually slow them down. Where our state of rest is a speed of zero, theirs would be a speed of infinity. Again, this is entirely theoretical, but possible even by the laws of relativity.

The fundamental fact here is this:

[b]Relativity does NOT state 'nothing can go faster than the speed of light'. What it DOES state is that nothing can go AT the speed of light.[/b]

the speed of light is not so much a limit, think of it as more of a wall. If you are on one side of the wall, you can not get to the other [i]VIA ACCELERATION ALONE[/i]. There may be new areas of physics emerging which allow us to break the light barrier, I don't deny that. However, using current theories, it is impossible.

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]A state of infinite speed might as well be at rest though. If something was moving at infinite speed, then it would pass through through all points in the universe at once. So it wouldn't really be moving at all, it would be everywhere.[/font][/color]

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B]
[color=royalblue]Given current technology, it would be impossible to launch warheads from the station. The force from launching a warhead would actually push the station out of its orbit -- remember, the station has nothing to "grip" onto and thus, the major force of a rocket would push the station out into space and it would never be seen again. I'd have thought that was just common sense. :)[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

I suppose it is common sense, but Newton actually had to incorporate it into his laws before people accepted it. It could be possible given current technology, though the only way I can see is to fire another missile in the opposite direction, which puts more stress on the station, and is a waste of good material (I assume that if they did do this, they wouldn't use an actual armed missile, so I'm not going to go into the problems if that were the case), and also, if the launchers were misaligned, the sation would slowly (or not so slowly) spin.

[quote]A state of infinite speed might as well be at rest though. If something was moving at infinite speed, then it would pass through through all points in the universe at once. So it wouldn't really be moving at all, it would be everywhere.[/quote]

Yes, but it's hard to imagine such a thing. We don't really know that that is the case. It's difficult to comprehend such a thing. Looking at it with our normal perception of the universe, this is correct. but our 'normal' perception of the universe pretty much ended at the beginning of the century, when both quantum physics and relativity were put forward. OK, we don't look at te world any differently, because we never have o interact with things going near the speed of light, or things smaller than atoms. In our everyday lives, nothing has changed. But if these particles exist, then the world in which they do so would be completely different - Imagine having to put energy into something to slow it down. It doesn't work in our normal view of the universe.

Of course, there is another possibility.. and I do use the word 'possibility' lightly, as this is just what I tjought in the last 15 minutes:

If the universe were to stop expanding, and to contract instead, time would reverse it's flow. This is due to one of the laws of thermodynamics. For the universe to contract, the law would be broken (I don't know the exact details of this 'law' but I'll look into it). Hence, at any point in the universe, time will always flow towards the point where the universe is at it's largest. Perhaps a similar principle applies to the light barrier. In the case above, we see the contraction of the universe as in the future, going towards the eventual collapse of the universe.

If we look from a particular point after the contraction, then from our point of view with regards to the flow of time, the point at which the universe is largest is in the past, and it's collapse is in the future. However, look at it from the point of view with regards to the flow of time at that particular point, this is reversed, and the point in time that we are at, actually appears to be in the future.

Maybe a similar concept applies with the light speed barrier. Although any speed beyond this would appear, to our limited perspective as faster than the speed of light, to the beings (if there are any) on the other side of the light speed barrier, they may move in the same way we do- and our side would seem to them as 'faster than light'.

This is a very strange concept... one of my '15 minute concepts'.. though it is just a personal idea, and to be honest, if it's correct then there is no way to prove it, and there probably won't be for a while.

but the more plausible idea is, in fact, that the particle is just 'everywhere' at rest.

EDIT- please excuse any spelling mistakes. certian keys aren't very responsive on this keyboard..

Okay, BIG EDIT here.. I just read through what you've been writing in the past week and [i]what a load of crap it was[/i]. No one has been able to explain why moving air creates low pressure. So what?.. It makes sense, it's simply the reverse of the fact that [b]Areas of relative low pressure make air move.[/b] It makes more sense than claiming that there is less air, which is, by the way, false.

Instead consider this...

Why do things fall down?? Gravitational Force

What causes this force?? Interactions between matter

Why does the matter interact??

Now this is where all kinds of theories come in. One of which is the action of gravitons- elementary particles which cause gravitational interaction.

but why do the particles do this?

you can't explain everything. Whenever you advance up one level of explanation, another appears which asks more questions. What is matter, really? and why does it behave the way it does? you can't explain it.

The only reason you don't ask this question is that every day, you live in a world where matter interacts, things fall down, and many other things we take for granted.

Another one- what is charge? yes, it arises from electrons, and we know what they are, they're small lumps of charge with mass (or mass wih charge) but what is charge? We don't know.

The general point of this is- There are some things you can't explain, and you simply have to accept, because if they didn't work that way, the universe would be entirely different. Moving air creating an area of low pressure is one of the less difficult problems.

[quote]I have friends with PhD's on their walls[/quote]

in what? air movement? A PhD is useless outside it's area of specialism, so a PhD means little unless you say [i]exactly[/i] what area it's in.

[Guest Shift]

Yeh, that tis all true..

hey deus where the hell ya been? geton aim!

and *points to titel* muhahahhahaahahh

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Herman [/i]
[B]Yeh, that tis all true..

hey deus where the hell ya been? geton aim!

and *points to titel* muhahahhahaahahh [/B][/QUOTE]

Dear God No!!!

I been many places, I done many things. But I'm back. Unfortuntely, Im not gonna be on as often as I'd like to be, and AIM doesn't work on this computer very well (I'm at a university, not the one i go to, on my Dad's Mac). The keyboard isn't too good either, the 'a' key is pretty unresponsive.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Herman [/i]
[B]drn it....well do you have Msn? lol.

I hear ya about the keyboard.

Mesa just got done working out the bugs of the new forum... >< [/B][/QUOTE]

No, I think this Mac just has something against messenger programs... I didn't make another post cos, well, I value my life too much to start a 'post conversation' about messengers....

[Guest Shift]

drn it....well do you have Msn? lol.

I hear ya about the keyboard.

Mesa just got done working out the bugs of the new forum... ><

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]I'd like to point out that the "Big Crunch" theory has recently been disproven. There is an opposite to gravity, rather imaginatively called antigravity. Three guesses what it does. So the universe could not contract to a point small enough to make that viable. I put that theory in just as an example of things that could not be explained, before Cloricus deciding that it could be.

Time would be expected to reverse. Time and space are two sides to one thing. They are related the way electricity and magentism are. You could not have one without the other. Which disproves and linear time notions religions are so fond of ocming up with...[/font][/color]

[Guest cloricus]

Harlequin, always has to have the last word.


Deus_Ex_Machina thank you for correcting me.

Nothing can really be disproved until it has been done. We are just little humans trying to comprehend a universe that is way beyond our grasp. For all we know every single theory we have is wrong.
Or maybe not.

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]You do the same thing Cloricus.

And for a little theory of my own.

Nothing can ever be disproven. Ever. In an infinite universe, anything is possible. There is nothing except logic to say that just because something happens once, that it won't happen a different way in the same circumstances, or that a different event will take place instead. And what is logic based on? Sequences of events. So it's useless in that context. There is always probability, but never certainty. Does that just make things so much more interesting?[/font][/color]

[Guest cloricus]

How can you prove it's an infinite universe!
Hows that for last words!

Beaten by your own logic, how sad....

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]Simple Cloricus. It has to be. A finite universe means finite possibilities. We've conceded that. Now, why has the universe not started repeating itself? Because it is infinite. I suppose you'll say what if we haven't reached the end of the possibilities yet? Well, then space would repeat itself. Which would mean that time would repeat itself. Because time and space are directly linked. Now, time repeating. Which is? Folding time. So even if it did happen, we wouldn't know. It would keep continuing until something changed. And if nothing changed, then it would keep repeating. It couldn't even end, because nothing ever changed. Which would mean it was infinite.

So I'd say Cloricus, that while logic often annoys me, it sometimes works.[/font][/color]

[Guest cloricus]

I haven't even read it and I'm not going to, this goes around and around in circles. I've asked you to stop several times and you have not.

Just leave it, you can even have the last word if you want, I DON'T CARE.

[Dragon Warrior]

It's not wise for NASA to spend the money on some little satellite. Might as well use it for some good if they must take it. The space station isn't going to do any good at the moment anyways.

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Harlequin [/i]
[B][font=gothic][color=crimson]I'd like to point out that the "Big Crunch" theory has recently been disproven. There is an opposite to gravity, rather imaginatively called antigravity. Three guesses what it does. So the universe could not contract to a point small enough to make that viable. I put that theory in just as an example of things that could not be explained, before Cloricus deciding that it could be.[/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I know, but the point I made was that [i]if[/i] the universe contracted (which I forgot to add that we now think it won't.. I say 'think' because many such theories have been proven wrong later) then time would theoretically reverse. Whether the universe actually would contract or not isn't really the issue here.

[quote]A finite universe means finite possibilities. We've conceded that. Now, why has the universe not started repeating itself? Because it is infinite. I suppose you'll say what if we haven't reached the end of the possibilities yet? Well, then space would repeat itself. Which would mean that time would repeat itself. Because time and space are directly linked. Now, time repeating. Which is? Folding time. So even if it did happen, we wouldn't know. It would keep continuing until something changed. And if nothing changed, then it would keep repeating. It couldn't even end, because nothing ever changed. Which would mean it was infinite. [/quote]

1) A finite universe means finite possibilities:

There is a theory that if a race with sufficient technology beyond ours were to come to Earth, we would mistake them for Gods. It may not seem relevant, but you could draw from that theory, that a universe with a large enough number of possibilities might be mistaken for an infinite number. Hence, you don't truly know if the possibilities are infinite until they are all used up, and if the possibilities are inifinite, they will never be used up. To put it short- you will never know if the universe has infinite possibilities.

2) Now, why has the universe not started repeating itself? Because it is infinite.

No. That argument would work in the case of 'the universe has started repeating itself, therefore it is finite', but if the universe is truly infinite, you may suspect it, but you never know, because 'infinite' means, in the case of the universe 'never ending', therefore the only way to distinguish between infinite and finite things is the fact that finite things end, therefore you can only ever come to a conclusion if the universe is finite, because an infinite universe would never give the ending point at which you can make the conclusion. This is basically just expanding on the last comment.

3) I suppose you'll say what if we haven't reached the end of the possibilities yet? Well, then space would repeat itself.

Space would theoretically repeat itself, if the probability of space repeating itself was great enough. Essentially, if there is a finite, but very large (in universal terms) number of possibilities, then Space is unlikely to repeat itself for quite a while.


4) Which would mean that time would repeat itself. Because time and space are directly linked. Now, time repeating. Which is? Folding time. So even if it did happen, we wouldn't know.

There are more dimensions than just the three in space, and then time. We are completely oblivious to them, but it is believed by some that there are around 20, and this is just by our limited understanding. They may all be directly linked, or some may be linked to others, but not to all of them. You can not say with absolute certainty that time would repeat itself if space did, because firstly, we haven't noticed either, and secondly, there are so many dimensions that we are oblivious to, that they could have a huge effect on time, but not space, or the other way around.

5) It would keep continuing until something changed. And if nothing changed, then it would keep repeating. It couldn't even end, because nothing ever changed.

The question cloricus asked is 'how can you prove it's an infinite universe'. I see no proof here, just a lot of theory and not a lot of facts. You said you could prove it, not that you could speculate about what would happen if time repeated.

6) Which would mean it was infinite

I will end this post by saying this: How can a finite mind begin to comprehend infinity? You can't. We live with finite numbers, our mathematics is based around finite numbers, and infinity is where the rules that finite numbers uphold, start to break down.