Pelican Parts Forums
Page 2 of 4 « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)
-   -   I'm convinced that this will kill us all.. (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/512430-im-convinced-will-kill-us-all.html)

exitwound 11-23-2009 09:15 AM
It's in the nature of humans to dispute and conquer. Bombs would get bigger no matter what physics principles the universe abode by.

competentone 11-23-2009 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu (Post 5027037)
So, because you watch a little "science-y" TV or read a poorly written book, you've now decided that physicists are con men and lying to the world? You're a piece of work...

Here, let me totally break this down for you:
1) I'm a idiot
Lets see...if someone looks at the world around them, thinks about it, questions it, does some experimenting, makes some logical conclusions, educates himself to be able to make more logical conclusions, then tries to understand the fullness of what comes out of that...is THAT you're definition of "idiot"???

2) I'm a con man:
Um...who am I conning? A con man is someone who lies and coerces someone else to gain something from them. Who am I coercing, and what am I gaining? In fact, which physicist sat there and told the world that "this is how it is, and because of that, you gotta give me money"? I've never heard of a physicist who thinks that everyone needs to understand these things, or forces said knowledge on anyone. How can such a person then be a "con man"? You have strange and disturbing definitions for words.

So, since I'm neither an idiot nor a con man, you need to find something else.

Now, lets go on to your unreasonable assumptions about "time".
1) Because you don't like the terms "warping of time" (which is actually "warping of spacetime", but hey, details, right? big deal...). So, you don't like that term, so you will declare thousands of people as idiots because YOU don't understand it. We'll ignore the fact that "warping of spacetime" is something used to help our minds kinda understand the larger actions going on, not that there is some actual fabric stretched across the Universe getting bent up. You are aware that all of those pictures in the books, and pretty graphics on Discovery Channel...those are all fake, right? They're not literal absolute descriptions of the Universe, right?

You do understand that, right?

Hmmm...

2) Do you have an actual problem with time, or with our ENUMERATING it, or with our acceptance that if you put one second after another second, you have 2 seconds, not 1.537 seconds? Should we call them glabbles, not seconds? Do you not like the idea that we can describe fully the position of something in our Universe using 3 orthogonal vectors, which define the Cartesian coordinate system? Do you not like the naming standard of "XYZ", or do you not like that you seem to think that by calling it "XYZ" that we have declared it the One and True Coordinate System? you do know that there are an infinite number of Cartesian coordinate systems, and we can use any of them at any time? We can even use OTHER coordinate systems...whenever we want! Seems that this is the opposite of your assumptions about us conning people about the Universe...

3) Do you think that the connection between space and time is wrong? Are speed, acceleration and velocity based in fallacy? Do you think that an object traveling along a flat table might travel a different distance in any two time ticks, since they're kinda all humanly constructed by us idiots and con men?

4) You keep talking about time, and how it's related to space...which tells me you have NO CLUE what you're talking about. Time is not a spacial dimension. It's not the fourth dimension. Now, the total package "ct", that is, time multiplied by the speed of light...that does have the characteristics of being a dimension (it's orthogonal to XYZ, and can be used to further delineate a specific singular point in 4-space), but it's never really USED as the 4th dimension, because it's not. However, if you read some simplistic magazine articles (as you obviously did), then you might *assume*, through ignorance, that time is the 4th dimension. You'd be wrong.

5) Do you dispute the concept of the "arrow of time" as well? Do you think that any process in the Universe could work just fine run backwards along the time vector? Do you call us idiots and con men for stating that such a thing is wrong, and that there is most definitely an arrow of time integrated into all of nature, and that almost nothing can actually be run backwards?


Basically, you don't have the information of experience to understand this, you then make rash and rude statements about others who DO have the information and experience to understand it. It'll be interesting to see how defensive you get now, and how random your statements are (you're posts have devolved in this thread).
One thing is for sure: you certainly are insecure about something to take my comments so personally! But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by such outrage when I attack someone's "religion."

You keep playing with your "space-time" ideas dreaming up whatever "theory" tickles your fantasy -- I'll stick to reality (and keep building s--t in the real world that works on the principles that apply in the real physical world.)

exitwound 11-23-2009 03:23 PM
That's the point. There's a gap between the large world (what you see and feel and touch) and the quantum world. Newton's laws don't apply in the quantum world, yet, there is evidence that the quantum world exists and functions everywhere.

competentone 11-23-2009 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by exitwound (Post 5028061)
That's the point. There's a gap between the large world (what you see and feel and touch) and the quantum world. Newton's laws don't apply in the quantum world, yet, there is evidence that the quantum world exists and functions everywhere.
The descriptions used by those pushing certain ideas about the "quantum world" blur rather than clarify.

Perhaps the idea that "Newton's laws don't apply in the quantum [sub-atomic] world" is based upon an error? What if there is a failure to recognize that there is some other interaction (some other matter/matter in motion) forcing sub-atomic particles to behave in the apparent "non-Newtonian" way that they do?

But now we're getting close to the whole reason the field of physics was attacked, and largely destroyed, in the first part of the 20th century....

Knowledge is power; destroy certain bases of knowledge -- like theoretical physics -- supplanting them with mysticism, and you succeed in keeping people "in the dark" and "unpowerful."

RWebb 11-23-2009 04:09 PM
this sort of mumbo-jumbo is why scientists do tests before adopting some mere idea

and that brings us back to the big machine -- it allows us to do tests

now here is ANOTHER idea - what if compy goes away when he closes his eyes? did he ever really exist?

competentone 11-23-2009 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWebb (Post 5028126)
now here is ANOTHER idea - what if compy goes away when he closes his eyes? did he ever really exist?
I'm logging off the computer right now, so you can try to figure out whether or not I really existed....

Pazuzu 11-24-2009 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by competentone (Post 5028053)
One thing is for sure: you certainly are insecure about something to take my comments so personally! But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by such outrage when I attack someone's "religion."
Is that the best you can do? I lay out on a silver platter a whole plethora of things you could have answered, and any of them could have been turned around to skewer me, yet all you can do is make more personal attacks.

You failed miserably at this little game of yours. You can't even defend your own simple statements. That's sad when a man can't even defend what he's claiming.

MrScott 11-24-2009 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by exitwound (Post 5027280)
It's in the nature of humans to dispute and conquer. Bombs would get bigger no matter what physics principles the universe abode by.
Apologies for not following the green text rule. My point was the principles of General Relativity apply to a host of things I think we can all agree are not witchery: nuclear powerplants, high-precision GPS systems.

I feel like I'm defending the 'earth revolves around the sun' theory. This is non-controversial for anyone with a solid understanding of the subject. At the risk of sounding elitist can everyone with degrees in physics from accredited universities raise their hand?
SmileWavy

Pazuzu 11-24-2009 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrScott (Post 5030224)
I feel like I'm defending the 'earth revolves around the sun' theory. This is non-controversial for anyone with a solid understanding of the subject. At the risk of sounding elitist can everyone with degrees in physics from accredited universities raise their hand?
SmileWavy
I only have two, can I raise my hand too? I've taught at two universities, did research at two, am on my second career with the word "physicist" in my title, am published more than 10 times and gave an oral presentation in front of a national society, does that give me the in? :p

Edit: I think that just makes us BOTH lying idiotic con men...

red-beard 11-24-2009 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu (Post 5030746)
Edit: I think that just makes us BOTH lying idiotic con men...
Are we talking about global warming?

BRPORSCHE 11-24-2009 09:06 PM
Physcists are wacky. I have PLENTY of evidence.

red-beard 11-24-2009 09:07 PM
This thread is useful without pictures

Pazuzu 11-24-2009 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRPORSCHE (Post 5030781)
Physcists are wacky. I have PLENTY of evidence.
But we know how to drink. We can manipulate TIME and SPACE and SPACETIME.

We're frigging GODS.

porsche4life 11-24-2009 09:10 PM
Mike you can only manipulate time and space after all that drinking... and then its all in your head. ;)

Pazuzu 11-24-2009 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by porsche4life (Post 5030789)
Mike you can only manipulate time and space after all that drinking... and then its all in your head. ;)
YOU! In the wormhole!

Schumi 11-24-2009 09:12 PM
My new hobby is showing extremely-religious types these photos, and then tell them that this machine is literally looking into their souls. Oddly enough, not many argue against this, as.... c'mon.. it looks as though it could. It's that bad-ass....

http://inapcache.boston.com/universa...4_00808022.jpg

Pazuzu 11-24-2009 09:15 PM
There's no people in that pic to give it perspective. It's hard to fully realize that you're looking at a donut that is probably 50 feet tall. I've seen the Tevatron, and can only assume that the LHC is larger in all aspects.

porsche4life 11-24-2009 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu (Post 5030791)
YOU! In the wormhole!
Do your worst. :p

Heel n Toe 11-24-2009 09:37 PM
A few questions for you brainy peeps in this high tech thread...

1) What would happen if a space rock the size of a baseball or larger, going 100,000 MPH, went through the Shuttle or the ISS... specifically, through a pressurized area with astronauts inside it, frollicing in t-shirts? Would it be survivable? Is there some kind of system in the walls that would self-repair the hole/s? Has it ever happened... with, say... a smaller projectile?

2) Let's say that 50-100 years from now some earthlings are off on an interstellar journey at or near the speed of light... or even half that speed. Forget wormhole travel. What's gonna keep the spacecraft from hitting a space rock and having it cut a hole through the craft from nose to tail? Seriously. I don't think we're gonna have a force field to keep the thing safe, are we? Wouldn't that eat up a ton of energy?

2b) Just a manned trip to Mars in a decade or two... couldn't it be completely trashed if it hit a space rock or vice versa?

Are these kinds of things just considered "acceptable risks?"

If so, my answer is, "BS... not with my tax money."

Schumi 11-24-2009 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 5030826)
A few questions for you brainy peeps in this high tech thread...

1) What would happen if a space rock the size of a baseball or larger, going 100,000 MPH, went through the Shuttle or the ISS... specifically, through a pressurized area with astronauts inside it, frollicing in t-shirts? Would it be survivable? Is there some kind of system in the walls that would self-repair the hole/s? Has it ever happened... with, say... a smaller projectile?

2) Let's say that 50-100 years from now some earthlings are off on an interstellar journey at or near the speed of light... or even half that speed. Forget wormhole travel. What's gonna keep the spacecraft from hitting a space rock and having it cut a hole through the craft from nose to tail? Seriously. I don't think we're gonna have a force field to keep the thing safe, are we? Wouldn't that eat up a ton of energy?

2b) Just a manned trip to Mars in a decade or two... couldn't it be completely trashed if it hit a space rock or vice versa?
1) A baseball going that fast would have enough energy to destroy the entire craft. Not it has never happened. There have been small impacts of tiny rock that have been seen, but at the microscopic level. If anything big were to happen it most likely would not be survivable. This is why NASA tracks all debris greater than a square inch or so in space with radar. The good thing is the debris travel together, so there are safe areas/altitudes to be at where there is not much theat.

2) Nothing keeps it from hitting anything. The good thing is there isn't anything out there to hit. Once you are out of the solar system, it's pretty much vacuum. For instance, Voyager 1 is pretty much outside our known solar system by now yet it still sends signals back to earth.. so it hasn't been hit by anything and it's been travelling at 20,000 mph or so for 40 years.


3) Yep... that's an issue. But we went to the moon, and any ship nowdays would be fitted with radar capable or tracking such objects and warning the crew in advance.. The ISS has such a system.

Heel n Toe 11-24-2009 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi (Post 5030838)
1) ..............If anything big were to happen it most likely would not be survivable. This is why NASA tracks all debris greater than a square inch or so in space with radar. The good thing is the debris travel together, so there are safe areas/altitudes to be at where there is not much theat.
Yeah, I knew that... that's just the stuff floating around earth.

I was talking about stuff coming in from outside... would they be able to detect something 3-15" in diameter moving at 100,000 MPH in time to take evasive action?

Schumi 11-24-2009 10:12 PM
I wouldn't think so.

I think the thing is, is that space is so big and empty that the chances if intercepting stuff like that moving around it so small as to not worry about it unless you are in earth orbit (AKA we hit our own s*%#..) or near a known metor area/belt or some sort.. again, the junk sorta groups together in orbits and what not as to not leave a lot of random stuff out there.

competentone 11-25-2009 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrScott (Post 5030224)
My point was the principles of General Relativity apply to a host of things I think we can all agree are not witchery: nuclear powerplants, high-precision GPS systems.
And you're saying the theoretical physicists are out there designing and building this stuff?

competentone 11-25-2009 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu (Post 5029970)
Is that the best you can do? I lay out on a silver platter a whole plethora of things you could have answered, and any of them could have been turned around to skewer me, yet all you can do is make more personal attacks.

You failed miserably at this little game of yours. You can't even defend your own simple statements. That's sad when a man can't even defend what he's claiming.
I have better things to do with my time than spend it "arguing" against mysticism.

There is a real world out there; I live in it.

Pazuzu 11-25-2009 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by competentone (Post 5031032)
I have better things to do with my time than spend it "arguing" against mysticism.

There is a real world out there; I live in it.
You had plenty of time to wander in and call me an idiot, along with thousands of other people, yet you don't have time to explain yourself? I would think that you're simple, solid worldview would be extraordinarily easy to define for everyone instead of this "mysticism", yet everyone talks about this "mysticism" and no one talks about your down home country views.

Interesting, isn't it? I also find it laughable that you think that "living in the real world" or "making things" is mutually exclusive from having an understanding of the Universe. Seems that you're one of the only people anywhere who thinks that way.

IROC 11-25-2009 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by competentone (Post 5031031)
And you're saying the theoretical physicists are out there designing and building this stuff?
No, engineers do their evil bidding. That's what I do for a living - turn theoretical physicists dreams into reality. :)

...and to answer one of Heel n' Toe's questions - micrometeoroids strike the shuttle and ISS on occasion. Some parts of the ISS have what they call MMODS or "MicroMeteoroid Orbital Debris Shields". Most of the time it's just layers of thin aluminum to absorb the energy of the impact.

We had a micrometeoroid strike a trunnion (the structural interface between a payload and the shuttle) on a Spacelab Pallet. The trunnion was made of forged titanium. The micrometeoroid vaporized the material and blew right through the "bathtub fitting" portion of the trunnion. Luckily it remained structurally sound enough to survive landing loads. It does happen.

BLEW911 11-25-2009 10:46 AM
Sooo........ did they start it up or what? We're still here. I think.

competentone 11-25-2009 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu (Post 5031468)
You had plenty of time to wander in and call me an idiot, along with thousands of other people, yet you don't have time to explain yourself? I would think that you're simple, solid worldview would be extraordinarily easy to define for everyone instead of this "mysticism", yet everyone talks about this "mysticism" and no one talks about your down home country views.

Interesting, isn't it? I also find it laughable that you think that "living in the real world" or "making things" is mutually exclusive from having an understanding of the Universe. Seems that you're one of the only people anywhere who thinks that way.
I already laid out the basics of my "simple, solid worldview" earlier in this thread. I'll venture to guess that you're so upset thinking that I called "you" an idiot, that you can't see past any of your rage to actually consider any position other than the one you hold -- which is a pretty clear indication you follow some "dogmatic" philosophy.

(And no, I have no intentions of writing a treatise here laying out my complete views, nor explaining experimentation supporting it.)

As for your suggestion that I'm claiming that "'making things' is mutually exclusive from having an understanding of the Universe" -- nothing could be further from the truth. You apparently didn't understand my insult. I was suggesting that you are living in a "fantasy world" with the "physics" you ascribe to. I was suggesting that if you attempted to actually use your claimed principles to build something in the real world, your principles would fall apart -- what you built, would not work.

(That's why many theoretical physicists stay hidden away in universities or working on obtuse government funded projects; they can spend a lot of time playing around with a lot of esoteric theories and never have to tie those theories to the real world and build stuff that actually works!)

RWebb 11-25-2009 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu (Post 5031468)
You had plenty of time to wander in and call me an idiot, along with thousands of other people, yet you don't have time to explain yourself? ....
about the LAST thing we want, is for him "to explain himself"

Pazuzu 11-25-2009 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by competentone (Post 5031827)
I'll venture to guess that you're so upset thinking that I called "you" an idiot
No, you did call me an idiot or a con man. Neither is acceptabel in modern society, yet you insist on defending your own rotten actions.

Quote:
Quote:
that you can't see past any of your rage to actually consider any position other than the one you hold -- which is a pretty clear indication you follow some "dogmatic" philosophy.
So, being upset that you called me an idiot and or con man makes me dogmatic? You really are on drugs, aren't you?

(And no, I have no intentions of writing a treatise here laying out my complete views, nor explaining experimentation supporting it.)
Treatise? You are showing how little you trust your own claims, for if they were as established and strong as you claim, and my world view as fragile and fake as you claim, then you should be able to shoot it down with ease. Instead, you hide.

Quote:
I was suggesting that if you attempted to actually use your claimed principles to build something in the real world, your principles would fall apart -- what you built, would not work.
So, now I a lying con man idiot who cannot build something? You're not winning any points here.

Quote:
(That's why many theoretical physicists stay hidden away in universities or working on obtuse government funded projects; they can spend a lot of time playing around with a lot of esoteric theories and never have to tie those theories to the real world and build stuff that actually works!)
If you would have just said in your very first post "I'm not a big fan of theoretical physicists because they are esoteric and don't really produce much of anything" then I'd be agreeing with you completely! However, that's NOT what you said...instead, you made some absurd unqualified statements about something you don't even begin to understand. I bet you wish that time was bi-directional now, huh?

Pazuzu 11-25-2009 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLEW911 (Post 5031676)
Sooo........ did they start it up or what? We're still here. I think.
Yes, it's making collisions. It's at low power (lower than other accelerators are working at) for right now. It'll ramp up over the next 12 months or so to it's full Universe destroying level.

Or, it'll break because some theoretical physicist probably had something to do with it's design.

Schumi 11-25-2009 01:10 PM
I have the feeling that parts of being an engineer on that project may be insanely cool... but I also have the feeling that dealing with the physicists would be insanely annoying.

Pazuzu 11-25-2009 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 5030843)
Yeah, I knew that... that's just the stuff floating around earth.

I was talking about stuff coming in from outside... would they be able to detect something 3-15" in diameter moving at 100,000 MPH in time to take evasive action?
1) Things don't move through open space at such speeds.
2) Interplanetary space is amazingly empty. I mean, you cannot comprehend how empty it is.
3) Eventually, a space craft will encounter something that will punch through the wall, and the people inside will die a miserable painful death. I'll make sure that none of your tax money was involved in that specific craft.

jurhip 11-25-2009 01:30 PM
So I didn't read the last two pages because you guys/girls are boring and debating a relatively boring subject. (does that make it interesting?)

BUT, someone (yet to be named) is confusing/arguing over particle physics theory with newtonian physics references.

In the end, they are called theories for a reason. Hopefully the collider will make my future 911 faster and be able to sustain 2g midcorner on snow tires. Maybe even allow me to drive in 4 dimensions - although that will probably be limited to some unobtainable carrera GT type model :)

MrScott 11-25-2009 01:30 PM
competentone,

Physics defines the workings of the physical universe in mathematical terms. The advancement of physics depends on unbiased pursuit of the mathematical model best supported by experimentation. I mention General Relativity because E = mc^2 was theoretical until we split the atom. The math of Quantum mechanics necessitated theoretical particles which only later we detected. I could go on.

I admit some theories are 'out there' but that's more a criticism of the scientific method (which is essentially guess-and-check) than any branch of Physics. Hypothesis -> experimentation -> confirmation. It's unrealistic to suggest these guesses should always be correct and unfair to criticize unintuitive guesses as many times they've proven to be correct. Theories, correct and incorrect, are necessary for progress in any scientific field.

dd74 11-25-2009 01:49 PM
Maybe competentone needs to know what additions to the solid world physics has initiated or given.

Or, what is it in a tangible hands-on way will the HSC reveal or create for us?

Pazuzu 11-25-2009 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dd74 (Post 5032050)
Maybe competentone needs to know what additions to the solid world physics has initiated or given.
Does Wayne have enough database storage to accommodate that list?

Quote:
Or, what is it in a tangible hands-on way will the HSC reveal or create for us?
The LHC? It will have no hands on contributions to society. It's purely going to verify or destroy a few key theories. It's Big Science, no question there, and it's purely educational. However...those key theories that it will (hopefully) verify do have extensive hands on contributions. The Standard Model is used all over the place, and verification of the energy of the Higg's Boson is one of the last missing pieces of the Inflationary Big Bang.

No one acted like this when they verified the top quark at Fermilab. This is the exact same thing, just scaled up a bit in size and price.

dd74 11-25-2009 02:12 PM
Yes, I meant LHC.

Now, what would be the advantage of knowing the Big Bang theory? What can we benefit from understanding how the universe began?

Pazuzu 11-25-2009 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dd74 (Post 5032107)
Yes, I meant LHC.

Now, what would be the advantage of knowing the Big Bang theory? What can we benefit from understanding how the universe began?
We cannot benefit from it. It's purely knowledge for it's own sake. That's an important part of humanity, and it's one of the key questions that has driven mad for tens of thousands of years, but the Big Bang will not help, hurt, or change society.

Now, the merging of the 4 fundamental forces at ultra-high energy, that might be useful. It'll be important to at least understand that mechanism if we expect to get anywhere with large scale fusion power, or interstellar drives (not warp drives, but cold fusion driven drives using interstellar hydrogen). Also, learning how high energy states change might give us a new form of superconductors. Quantum computing? Um, maybe more, but I just got the word to go home early, so we'll never know...

:p

BLEW911 11-25-2009 03:12 PM
omg.......I'm embarrassed for you guys. You are soooooo boring.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:24 AM.
Page 2 of 4 « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.