I'm convinced that this will kill us all..

[exitwound]

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]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

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]

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]

Originally Posted by exitwound

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]

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]

Originally Posted by RWebb

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]

Originally Posted by competentone

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]

Originally Posted by exitwound

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?

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by MrScott

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?

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?

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

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

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

Are we talking about global warming?

[BRPORSCHE]

Physcists are wacky. I have PLENTY of evidence.

[red-beard]

This thread is useful without pictures

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by BRPORSCHE

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]

Mike you can only manipulate time and space after all that drinking... and then its all in your head.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by porsche4life

Mike you can only manipulate time and space after all that drinking... and then its all in your head.

YOU! In the wormhole!

[Schumi]

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....

[Pazuzu]

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]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

YOU! In the wormhole!

Do your worst.

[Heel n Toe]

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]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

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.