Things I learned in physics class by BadgersHat

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:

1) F=MA (Force = Mass x Acceleration--basically the faster an object is moving, and the heavier and denser it is, the louder the crunch when it hits something)

Um, er...

Ok, the formula is correct when considering Newtonian Mechanics. But your interpretation is wrong.

This just means that when an object is accelerating at a greater rate, it'll have a greater force. It says nothing about density or the loudness of the crunch. The thing about the crunch, it is relative to the other object.

You're probably mixing this up with relativistic mass.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:

2) You can't push a rope.

Well, you could freeze the rope with liquide nitrogen first, then push it

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:

So, how can we apply these two fundamental principles of physics to the Fireflyverse?

There seems to even be some contradiction in FF with regards to (1).

For example, the gun that the alliance uses does a lot to humans, but won't do a thing to a door.

Or maybe it's just been too long since I watched it and I'm forgeting something.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:

thatweirdgirl with a crush on Michio Kaku

Maybe not after this. He's a mad man (I'm not kidding).

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/
July 13, 2005
"""
Kaku's article is entitled Testing String Theory, and is a thoroughly intellectually dishonest piece of writing,
"""

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:33 AM

BADGERSHAT

I think maybe you're missing the subtle layers of humor in my last statement, dude...

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
--Don't bother trying to predict, figure out, second guess, criticize, or suggest anything that comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, for you shall usually be wrong, and shall find out the Truth and Purpose in due time.
(This is the Truth of Whedoning)

"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:42 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Maybe not after this. He's a mad man (I'm not kidding).

No, I don't want to see it. Ack. Maybe he was high when he wrote that. Well crap.

So, anyone suggest a SANE physicist?

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
"...turn right at the corner then skip two blocks...no, SKIP, the hopping-like thing kids do...Why? Why not?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:44 AM

REAVERMADNESS

I understand the need to build speed... but not the need to "push" the entire way. The Voyager and other probes don't worry about the constant consumption of fuel. once the desired speed is reached you let off the gas. Then you try to use gravity wells as a means of slowing down when getting close to your location. For that matter you could also use them to speed up to save more fuel or to change directions.

Come on folks: this isn't rocket sci... nevermind.

When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not screaming and yelling like everyone else in the car he was driving.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:45 AM

THEGREYJEDI

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
For example, the gun that the alliance uses does a lot to humans, but won't do a thing to a door.

The guns the alliance uses, to me at least, seem to be sonic based. Sound, no matter how focused, isn't going to do a whole lot to a heavy metal door with a solid lock. Not for a while at least. A human, however, with it's squishy fleshy bits is likely to catch the sonic wave like a sail and go flying back like a plastic bag in the breeze.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Engineer - USS SereniTREE
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
Real Fans Wait - 09/30/05

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:29 AM

FFFAN1

Quote:
Originally posted by ReaverMadness:

In space gravity is severly limited. Tends to act like heavy objects on a water bed. The gravitational influences only go so far.

Actually... the effects of gravity are tremendous in space travel, and extend pretty much forever. Granted, they become less and less as you get farther away from one object or another, but it never stops, and certainly isn't "severely limited." There's a reason nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, travels in a straight line in space. Everything is moving in some kind of orbit or another. Blame gravity

Quote:
Originally posted by ReaverMadness:

There is no "air" in space.

Mostly true. True, enough, anyway, for your purposes.

Quote:
Originally posted by ReaverMadness:

There are solar winds. Though the effects of those are fairly limited.

The effects of solar winds are actually huge, but not on the motion of objects. More on the electronics.

The rest of your post has been fairly well addressed by others, so I won't add to the noise further other than to note that, with any currently understood propuslion system, you'd need more fuel than you have mass to accelerate to any reasonable fraction of the speed of light, and in order to push 1G to the nearest star system, you'd pass the speed of light (which, as far as we know can't even be reached, much less passed) long before you got half way. So you couldn't do it.

Sorry if this post was a bit much, but this is actually one of my areas of expertise. I actually am a rocket scientist...

*************************************************
Is it Christmas?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:47 AM

Quote:

So, anyone suggest a SANE physicist?

I'm a physicist, and I'm sane. Well at least I was last time I checked. You can obsess over me, just don't start stalking me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:52 AM

REAVERMADNESS

Quote:
Originally posted by FFFan1:
Quote:

Actually... the effects of gravity are tremendous in space travel, and extend pretty much forever.

When you get into the space in between the various and drastically weakened gravity wells begin to sort of cancel each other out.

Quote:

The rest of your post has been fairly well addressed by others...

Really? I was talking about maintaining course speed and direction, not really talking about "what speed" or how close it gets to the speed of light.

I go for more of the Sleeper Ship or Generational Ship idea anyway.

Here's a statement for fun:

Not too worried about the "can't go faster than the speed of light" thing either. You can't "go" the speed of light. You can't fly the (exact) speed of sound. If you did you'd break apart. That doesn't stop you from going faster.

The Speed of Dark is faster than the speed of light.
Example:
"Think about how fast a shadow can move. If you project a shadow of your finger using a nearby lamp onto a far away wall and then wag your finger, the shadow will move much faster than your finger. If your finger moves parallel to the wall, the speed will be multiplied by a factor D/d where d is the distance from the lamp to your finger and D is the distance from the lamp to the wall. It can actually be much faster than this if the wall is at some oblique angle. If the wall is very far away the movement of the shadow will be delayed because of the time it takes light to get there but its speed is still amplified by the same ratio. The speed of a shadow is therefore not restricted to be less than the speed of light."

Enough for now... back to work....

When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not screaming and yelling like everyone else in the car he was driving.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ColdFusion:
I'm a physicist, and I'm sane.

Interesting how the science threads bring the physicists out of the woodwork...

(Just got my MS in Physics & Astronomy in January)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FourSkys:
Interesting how the science threads bring the physicists out of the woodwork...

(Just got my MS in Physics & Astronomy in January)

Excellent, if we get enough of us physicists together we can start on a plan to take over the world, after which we can ensure that Firefly is produced again. Whoops, there goes the aformentioned sanity.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ColdFusion:
Excellent, if we get enough of us physicists together we can start on a plan to take over the world, after which we can ensure that Firefly is produced again. Whoops, there goes the aformentioned sanity.

First thing we need to do is build a rope that we can push. That's the first step to any world domination plan. Did someone say something about sanity?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:21 AM

FANTASTICLAUGHINGFAIRY

OK - three things I know about space/space travel that don't seem to have been mentioned.

1. I don't quite understand the theory, but the closer an obhect gets to the speed of light, the more it weighs - which makes it even harder to pick up speed etc. Don't ask me why - it's true though apparently.

2. Don't see how it'll help, but most of space is made up of dark matter - we can't see it - but it's there, and we know virtually nothing about it.

3. It may be possible to travel through a wormhole (aparently space is curved or something). It may be impossible though, I don't know very much about them.

There we go, thought I'd add my scientific knowledge to the pot of sanity.

Practically sane in every way FLF.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:44 AM

STARPILOTGRAINGER

I'm not a physicist, my degree's in computer science.

What we need to do is just find a way to find the universe's source code, then edit in a patch that lets us change our location by lightyears, and then recompile it. Voila, problem solved.

I'm also personally hoping that that whole 'mass approaches to infinity' thing isn't coded well enough, and there's a buffer overrun error we can exploit... once your mass gets too high, it just becomes negative. ;)

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6 (real)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/alternaljournal (fictional, travelling through another world)
Unreachable Star: http://www.unreachablestar.net - Comics & SF News/Reviews/Opinions
This week: My spoiler-free Serenity review

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:50 AM

Well, in an attempt to go back to the original point of this thread, let's start by illustrating how these 2 simple concepts (F=M*a and the non-pushability of rope) can be seen in the firefly 'verse:

1) F=M*a:

This is mostly cleaerly seen through Jayne. Jayne is clearly larger than the rest of the crew, and, assuming human beings are all equally dense, he has the most mass, and the biggest M. His acceleration is often controlled by his circumstances, and thus we need to look at some particular situations. Let's investigate "The Train Job". Here, Jayne is seen to fall from a substantial height onto the top of a moving train. This gives him a non-zero a. Large mass * significant a = impressive force. How do we know that the force was impressive? We go back to the ansatz posited by BadgersHat which states more mass and more acceleration yeilds a "louder crunch when it hits something". Thus, since we obviously hear a significantly loud crunch as Jayne falls onto the train, we can clearly see that BadgersHat Rule 1 clearly is applicable and significant in the Firefly 'verse.

2) The pushability of a rope is tricky in this case. At first, I was operating under the assumption that this is false, and a "pushable rope" is somehow responsible for the immense speed and artificial gravity which Serenity is able to create. Though this is, I believe, incorrect. First, we need to define what we mean by a rope. I'll chose as the working definition for this discussion "A rope is a length of flexible organic and/or synthetic material bound is such a way that it is substantially longer than it is wide." There are a number of places where rope is seen. See Jaynestown where rope is used to bundle the cargo hidden behind the bamboo forest and well as used to tie back the Shepard's unusual hair. Many other examples exist. As to the pushability, in no case has any of these "ropes" been successfully pushed. I spent many an hour pondering this question over cup after cup of Earl Grey tea only to come to the conclusion that:
1) If ropes were able to be pushed, surely they would be.
2) Our heros are living "pretty deep in the rough and tumble"*. If an effective means for pushing ropes exist, surely they would be doing it given its obvious implications for usefulness.
Thus, it can only be assumed, since we all know how useful it would be to have pushable ropes (allows the creation of such exotic devices such as fusion generators, non-dairy creamer, the ellusive quad-cycle, hyperspatial expressways, quasi-dimensional fractional statistics, etc.), we can only assume that they cannot, in truth, be pushable. Thus, BadgersHat Rule 2 must be true, merely by virtue that it would be too cool if it were false.

Bibliography
*Wash, in episode Heart of Gold

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:

No, I don't want to see it. Ack. Maybe he was high when he wrote that. Well crap.

So, anyone suggest a SANE physicist?

I may not be a physicist, but I'm into it! That good enough? Since all the others have proven there insanity, I would be proud to take his place

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

For example, the gun that the alliance uses does a lot to humans, but won't do a thing to a door.

The guns the alliance uses, to me at least, seem to be sonic based. Sound, no matter how focused, isn't going to do a whole lot to a heavy metal door with a solid lock. Not for a while at least. A human, however, with it's squishy fleshy bits is likely to catch the sonic wave like a sail and go flying back like a plastic bag in the breeze.

Seems to me that force is force no matter what it is projected against. Of course, if it was to shake or somesuch that wouldn't have any effect on a metal door, but a human wouldn't take to well to that. Same with micro-waves.

But, I seem to remember people reacting like they got hit, which means force against. This would make it such that the door would "feel" that same force.

That is unless the people reacting like they go hit is just my mistaken memory.

At any rate, I'm scheduled to re-watch the series over the next little while. *sigh* Way to long since I've watched them.

----

"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fantasticlaughingfairy:

1. I don't quite understand the theory, but the closer an object gets to the speed of light, the more it weighs - which makes it even harder to pick up speed etc. Don't ask me why - it's true though apparently.

Be careful not to mix up weight with mass. As an object picks up speed it gains mass.

Quote:

2. Don't see how it'll help, but most of space is made up of dark matter - we can't see it - but it's there, and we know virtually nothing about it.

The existence of dark matter is far from certain. It's simply a way of making up the difference between the amount of matter/energy that we can see in the universe and the amount of matter/energy that there should be for our universe to behave the way it does. Fourskys would probably know more about this than I, seeing as his specialty is astronomy. (my focus is more towards quantum physics)

Quote:

3. It may be possible to travel through a wormhole (aparently space is curved or something). It may be impossible though, I don't know very much about them.

Who knows? The prevailing theory is that it would require far too much energy to create a decent sized wormhole and keep it open than is practical. Also, in order to keep the wormhole open you'd have to pump it with so much energy that anything you tried to shove through it would be vaporized. But that's all speculation. If the people from 'Sliders' say it's possible, then I'm inclined to believe them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ColdFusion:
The existence of dark matter is far from certain. It's simply a way of making up the difference between the amount of matter/energy that we can see in the universe and the amount of matter/energy that there should be for our universe to behave the way it does. Fourskys would probably know more about this than I, seeing as his specialty is astronomy. (my focus is more towards quantum physics)

So (one of) the current theory(ies) about Dark Matter is that it likely would reside inside things with mass, but doesn't interact with things other than through the gravitation force (that is, you couldn't see it, that's an electromagnetic reaction). There are arguments for its existence through the rotation curves of galaxies (there appears to be more matter than is visible) and through observations of the cosmic microwave background. The cosmic microwave background is very convincing, and rules out 'normal' dark matter, such as cool stars and planets. This has to be a whole nother beastie all together. Something that, currently, we have no idea what it is.

As for it making up "All of space" that more along the lines of Dark Energy that you're thinking about. Which is completely different as well. Dark Energy makes up and permeates all of space, is EXPECTED (not shown or prooven, mind you) due to the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Both these problems are in the hands of cosmologists and particle physicists now.

Quote:
Originally posted by ColdFusion:
Who knows? The prevailing theory is that it would require far too much energy to create a decent sized wormhole and keep it open than is practical. Also, in order to keep the wormhole open you'd have to pump it with so much energy that anything you tried to shove through it would be vaporized. But that's all speculation. If the people from 'Sliders' say it's possible, then I'm inclined to believe them.

According to general relativity, the only way to get the curvature of spacetime required to create a wormhole is to have a particle with negative energy. Classically, there is no way to do this. Quantum mechanically, however, it is possible to have particles fluctuate to negative energies. But then you have the problem of making enough of them to stay in the negative energy superposition for a long enough time, and blah blah blah, pretty much impossible. On top of that, quantum mechanics and general relativity don't exactly see eye-to-eye, so there are plenty more vagueries where that comes in....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FourSkys:
According to general relativity, the only way to get the curvature of spacetime required to create a wormhole is to have a particle with negative energy. Classically, there is no way to do this. Quantum mechanically, however, it is possible to have particles fluctuate to negative energies. But then you have the problem of making enough of them to stay in the negative energy superposition for a long enough time, and blah blah blah, pretty much impossible. On top of that, quantum mechanics and general relativity don't exactly see eye-to-eye, so there are plenty more vagueries where that comes in....

It's been a while since I've done any general relativity, but if I remember correctly, the initial curvature can be created by normal energy/matter but it would need negative energy to hold it open. In either case, the main point of my comment was that this is one of those things that is on the fringe of physics. We don't have proven theories for such realms where both general relativity and quantum theory are applicable, so it's hard to predict what is beyond the next discovery. I certainly won't rule them out, it's good to keep an open mind.

Personally, I think that you can open a wormhole by pushing on a rope.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:11 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by ColdFusion:
I certainly won't rule them out, it's good to keep an open mind.

Always a good practice. But things like negative energy, exotic matter, wormholes and faster then light travel always seem to be bounded by the requirement of some ridiculously insurmountable wall that ultimately requires some amount of energy equal to or larger then the universe itself. The laws of physics might allow a wormhole to be opened, but any wormhole large enough to serve human practice would, based on the quantum inequalities, require more energy then exists in the known universe.

There are basically two schools of thought here, either the energy requirement is a product of an incomplete model or it’s real. There are lots of people who accept the incomplete model theory, diligently searching for some new discovery that will usher in the days when we can see past the event horizon. But I think it’s real. Although the model may be incomplete as well, and certainly the failure of quantum theory and relativity to get along may be demonstrative of that, but there is a broader philosophical point here. I think it says that the universe can’t be broken without destroying it. The universe is like a balloon, and you can’t punch a whole through the fabric of space without destroying it.

If you'll allow me to speculate (more then I already have): as our knowledge of the universe grows, I think we will come to understand some day that faster then light travel, whether through wormholes or space-time bubbles may indeed be possible, and maybe, someday even within our grasp. But the universe may not be without a since of irony, because it is entirely possible that if indeed we can someday engineer some monstrous device to manipulate negative energy and create a usable wormhole to wherever, we may do so only once.

Because what we may have created is the ultimate doomsday device.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:20 PM

SIMONSAYS

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
....and everything else is magic.

I have a confession. I didn't take physics. It conflicted with something, I don't remember what. It's more of a hobby. Wish I had taken it. When I have trouble understanding an equation or theory, I ask my dad. He's also a hobbyist. Two amateurs with no formal training sit around and talk about physics. I can only imagine how wrong we are! I'm monitoring this thread in hopes of learning something. So be smart!

thatweirdgirl with a crush on Michio Kaku

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
"...turn right at the corner then skip two blocks...no, SKIP, the hopping-like thing kids do...Why? Why not?"

God I love thatweirdgirl

I bet Physics conflicted with Cheerleading Practice

Are you really Cordelia Chase?
Or perhaps Harmony?

Remember what LOUIS VUITTON said: "It's in the bag!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:32 PM

To the physicists/cosmologists kicking around:

I am currently reading Brian Greene's, "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality". I'd like to toss out some topics for your commentary, in order to compare them to 'popular' works like Greene's.

I won't comment on them, because I know there's at least one 'science troll' hereabouts who's just waiting to tell me I'm not a scientist (which I readily admit) and that my opinions and interests on the subject are 'wrong' because I'm not a scientist and could not possibly understand (which I will not concede).

Here are the subjects I'd like some perspective on, if you'd be so kind:

1. String theory and its variants (Greene's a proponent, as is the previously imprecated Kaku).

2. Bohmian 'implicate and explicate orders'.

3. Higgs' fields and energy. (Greene goes to great length describing a non-zero Higgs' field that coalesced during the first 10 to the -36 seconds of the universe to drive the inflationary phase (what he calls an 'inflaton') and the remnant non-zero "Higgs' ocean" that continues to drive the universe's accelerating expansion against the force of gravity (which becomes weaker as the matter becomes increasingly 'spread out'). My question: Are you familiar with this notion? He cites references; but is this a widely held viewpoint? Any other input you may have on the topic.)

4. Do you believe the universe is ultimately holographic and/or n-dimensional?

5. Do you hold to the idea that any 'theory of everything' must invariably be incomplete because we are a part of the system being observed; that is, in order to completely understand a system we would have to be outside of the system under investigation? (It is my understanding that this concept is part of the core concepts of quantum mechanics, particularly the 'Copenhagen' interpretation. Do you believe this tenet to be true?)

I've got other burning questions I'd like to hear from y'all on -- for a more well-rounded informational base, if nothing else -- but, I suspect I've given y'all more than enough to chew on already.

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
Do the sheepskinned scientists hereabouts share Sigmanunki's opinion that Kaku is literally a madman? Just wondering. I mean, I know Sagan experimented with LSD and hid that fact for years; but isn't a little craziness just another descriptor for 'human'?
_________________________________________________

"Study your math, kids. Key to the Universe." -Gabriel, The Prophecy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:20 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonSays:
God I love thatweirdgirl
I bet Physics conflicted with Cheerleading Practice Are you really Cordelia Chase?
Or perhaps Harmony?

Cheerleader? Maybe band or AP French...It was a while ago. Um, no. Never ever been a cheerleader. Geek. Nerd. Dork. Or perhaps weirdo would better explain it. I have A Brief History of Time on my clie...I read it whenever I'm bored. I admit, I struggled through the third chapter. Bet it gets easier as you go.

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
"...turn right at the corner then skip two blocks...no, SKIP, the hopping-like thing kids do...Why? Why not?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:51 PM

REGRESSION

Interesting thing that...
Jayne gets hit and goes flying back a few metres. Looking at it from a conservation of momentum point of view, the guy who fired it should have flown back about the same distance to conserve momentum. Basically, when the alliance guy fired the weapon, it should have pushed him back with the same force that hit Jayne.

Imagine the sonic gun as being like a cannon. You remember what happens to cannons that arent tied down? hehe...

Something like this was on mythbusters a few weeks ago.

Quote:
The Speed of Dark is faster than the speed of light.

Anyone read that book, Speed of Dark? Elizabeth Moon. Its quite nice, about these autistic people that think, well, autistically.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:00 PM

If we are really keeping our minds open, I think that it's a dis-service to say that wormholes can exist. It would be more appropriate to say that, some theories say that they can, and others say that they can't.

Also, with regards to the faster than light thing. The only thing that is stated is that things can't accelerate to the speed of light. It says nothing about things already at the speed of light and/or beyond. Nor does anything state that there isn't another way to get to speed without acceleration. It's just that that is the only way we know how right now.

That being said, there is nothing to indicate that there is another way to get to speed aside from accelerating.

And what about future theories. We've been proven wrong before.

On a note about me by Zoid. I have seen recent interviews with Kaku and I challenge anyone that is sane to say that Kaku is sane. He is clearly unstable. I will also reference the above provided link. Clearly others think so as well, I
did link to Peter Woit, Columbia University.

On a note about String Theory. It has been around for what 30 years or so, and how many predictions? Any serious theory has to make prediction or else people with be highly critical of it (and rightly so). I'm just surprised that it's taken this long to get some serious critisism against string theory.

String Theory right now (as it's always been) is nothing more that pretty math and philosophy.

My wife (Theoretical Physicist) and I (senior mathematics student) watched Brian Greene's infomercial about string theory. Many things that he stated in that thing was blatenly wrong. ie QM predicts that space-time is "bumpy," it does not. It is nothing more than a pop infomercial for the masses so that they are convinced that it is true so that the String theorists get more funding (which they haven't earned).

A note to Zoid about me being a "science troll." The last time I got on you was because you didn't see reason. I also think that people (more that just Zoid) should stop using the term "troll" so often. Using it in situtations where is doesn't belong (like now) weakens the term for real trolls.

In that thread, I let a lot of things go and tried to explain that you didn't really know what you were talking about and tried to explain why (politely at first) that was so, and the reality of the matters. Some time passed and I thought it
was all done with. Then you started on again spouting the same provably false things (and more) to someone else. Even things that were already proven false.

At this point I was fed up and corrected you; pointing to literature that proved you wrong. You didn't take that well and then threatened me with a body cavity search should I enter your airport with that "attitude" (may I assume you still
hold that postion).

So, if you want to avoid another occurance of that, then just accept when you are wrong gracefully instead of freaking out. ie. When someone with a physics degree (in my wife's case a PhD) and/or is holding an actual text book infront of them quoting page numbers says that you are wrong, accept it, move on (when speaking of physics of course). Don't try to prove you point quoting pop literature.

ie Knowing the mathematics of something is very different than having read a poor explination of something through some pop novel. Not that a lay-man would be able to tell the difference of course.

And I never said that you could not understand, just that you didn't, which was clear and proven. Don't blame me if you can't handle that.

Also, saying that I'm just waiting to tell you that you aren't a scientist...

I'm definitly not waiting to tell you you are wrong or any such thing. BUT, I will not hesitate to tell you you are wrong if you are wrong. Which I hope that others here will tell me I am wrong, if that is the case.

This all of course should come with explination and hopefully accepting grace. Zoid, have you learned this quality yet?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:30 PM

FFFAN1

Quote:
Originally posted by ReaverMadness:
Quote:
Originally posted by FFFan1:

Actually... the effects of gravity are tremendous in space travel, and extend pretty much forever.

When you get into the space in between the various and drastically weakened gravity wells begin to sort of cancel each other out.

Well... Sort of... But only well outside of a star system (and getting out of our solar system is no mean feat), and even in interstellar space, you're still orbiting around the Galactic Center, being pulled in various directions by other stars, and being accelerated towards the nearest star, etc. Basically, you'd have to plot your course very carefully, and you'd still have to make lots of course corrections.

Quote:

Quote:

The rest of your post has been fairly well addressed by others...

Really? I was talking about maintaining course speed and direction, not really talking about "what speed" or how close it gets to the speed of light.

I go for more of the Sleeper Ship or Generational Ship idea anyway.

I didn't mean to say that the rest of your post was wrong or anything like that, just that the ideas you presented had been discussed and expanded on by others. I was responding more to what the others had written than to what you had.

*************************************************
It is, however, somewhat fuzzy on the subject of kneecaps.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:35 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, with regards to the faster than light thing. The only thing that is stated is that things can't accelerate to the speed of light. It says nothing about things already at the speed of light and/or beyond. Nor does anything state that there isn't another way to get to speed without acceleration. It's just that that is the only way we know how right now.

That being said, there is nothing to indicate that there is another way to get to speed aside from accelerating.

Actually there is a little criterion concerning zero mass. To travel at speed of light something must have zero mass, otherwise momentum becomes infinite at the speed of light. And beyond the speed of light, the mass must be negative. If you assume negative mass is meaningful and extant, then a massive objective simply cannot accelerate (or decelerate) to the speed of light.

So if you don’t rule out magic, a lot of possibilities open up.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:46 PM

SigmaNunki:

Dude.

I never mentioned you by name (except in the case of Michio Kaku and then not in a way that ridiculed your opinion, but that only sought to find if others agreed with your assessment). Only you and I remember this quarrel and I didn't want to get you started again. I really wanted some honest observations and opinions from the 3 working scientists who I saw were writing on this topic.

Yes, I also saw that you were writing on this topic. I know what your opinions are on science, religion and the topic of zoid. But, I have a burning desire to know what others think on the specific subjects I mentioned, so I risked posting on a thread I knew you were following.

So, I apologize for stating that there was a science troll, and for you self-identifying as the troll. Another man might have neatly sidestepped my ingeniously laid 'trap' by realizing that I hadn't mentioned him by name or directly challenged his views. Now can some one else have a chance to answer my sincere questions without any more of your personal assaults on my integrity? I assure you, I bear you no ill will, and wish only to avoid you to the extent possible. My desire to have absolutely no interaction with you is only outweighed by my interest in the opinions of others on this topic.

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
As far as the body cavity search thing goes: Your sig at the time was something along the lines of "You can get a really good cross-section of human mental illness in an airport waiting area -Me" or some such (edited, to be nice). Quoting oneself is (edited, to be nice). I then stated that if I ever saw you (or anyone else for that matter) sitting in my terminal casing the other passengers and wearing a tinfoil hat I'd have airport security body cavity search them. I stand by that statement.

I like your new sig much better. Mr. Rogers, Canada, bricks and Jon Stewart. I think it pretty much sums up your personal philosophy, too. Have a nice life...

P.P.S.
Science is a belief system with its own dogma and sects. I mention this because, what the hell? I'm already in trouble with SigmaNunki. How much worse could it possibly get?
_________________________________________________

"Mercy is the mark of a great man... Guess I'm just a good man... Well, I'm all right." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, "Shindig", Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 12:11 AM

Finn mac Cumhal wrote:

Quote:
...So if you don’t rule out magic, a lot of possibilities open up.

And, since no one else has mentioned it, if one were to accelerate a massive body like a spaceship to a significant fraction of the speed of light in order to make an interstellar journey, running into a chunk of pea gravel with the mass of a dime would prove catastrophic, unless the ship were somehow magically shielded from such collisions. Correct?

Would I also be correct in stating that since everything is relative, as one approaches infinite mass while accelerating to c, every other bit of matter one might encounter (even massive particles) could be seen as acquiring infinite mass instead, from the viewpoint of a traveler who felt stationary on the ship? Hence, you really don't want to come into contact with anything on your sub-10,000 year interstellar voyage at near-light velocities, unless one wants to become intimate with the ramifications of the E part of Einstein's equation...

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
I know accelerated motion is different from constant velocity motion; but, I think my observation is valid if somewhat improperly worded. I don't like overediting my posts. I was envisioning accelerating to say 2/3 the speed of light and then maintaining that constant velocity until a turnaround and deceleration. I'd speculate that one could not thus begin accelerating in earnest until beyond the Oort cloud, and must needs be appropriately decelerated before reaching the target system's Ooort-like cloud. That's going to make for a long trip in any case (at least 500 years?), unless we find some "magic"...
_________________________________________________

"Sure as I know anything, I know this: I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDM'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 4:21 AM

Wow, a lot can happen when one goes to sleep. Let me try to catch up as best I can...

ColdFusion:
You may be right about the wormhole. When I took GR, we didn't talk so much about the creating, only the maintaining. Solving the Einstein equations for a wormhole definitely yeilds a negative energy density, but I'm not sure about actually GETTING there in the first place...

Finn Mac Cumhal:
I'm not so sure I subscribe to the "science will be its own undoing" philosophy you're talking about. But i supposed that that depends onmy mood at the time. It's certainly possible for people to come up with something to exterminate all life on earth, but I tend to hope the universe is better designed than self-implosion if we get too far :-).

Zoid:
I am by no means a String Theorist, and I certainly haven't read the appropriate books to comment well about it. I've heard a few lectures, and a number of seminars on the subject, but that doesn't give me the authority to contradict Brian Greene. But, what I can say, is that I do know a goodly number of other physicists who have seen Brian Greene's show and read his book saying that it's mostly fluff, very hypothetical, and makes it sound a lot more possible and plausible than the mathematics will dictate. As has been mentioned, string thoery is a very pretty mathematical construction, but as for real physics, has made very little progress over the past few years. Possibly more progress than Numerical relativity, but that's another discussion all together.

To the Sigmanunki-Zoid Feud:
Ok, I seem to recall the thread that start this whole thing off, becuase I think I was posting in that one too. (Physics Geeks, Unite!) Let me just say this. Zoid, you can come off as a bit, um, aggressive with some of your posts. I'm not trying to take sides or be beligerent, just calling it as I see it. You don't mean anything by it, but even when you ask questions it can sound like you're attacking the other people...

Zoid II:
You're right, acceleration and speed are different beasts when you're traveling a significant fraction of the speed of light. The universe doesn't get more massive, because acceleration makes things no longer "relative". If you're not accelerating, you have no way of knowing whether you or the rest of space is moving, but when you are accelerating, you are feeling a force (just like if you were in a gravitational field), and that differentiates you from the rest of the universe, therefore only your mass increases. But yes, that still runs into a problem if you hit a pea sized anything, because at that speed, even something small is still likely to do you damage. Also, the Oort cload doesn't have much to do with it. Even in the Oort cloud, the densities of the material out there is quite small. Literally miles upon miles between one rock and the nexk. Granted, this is orders of magnitude more dense than insterstellar space, but still not a really significant issue...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 5:48 AM

FourSkys:

Thanks for your replies. By paragraphs:

1. My understanding of wormholes is that we are more likely to create very small temporary ones, than stable ones large enough to travel through. Potential uses for such would include telecommunications.

2. ..."science will be its own undoing": I, as an inhabitant of this planet, am very concerned about the prospect of fusion reactors on Earth. The notion of containing a plasma as hot as the sun within either a magnetic or inertial confinement of Man's manufacture, gives me pause. I'm also not keen on the names 'Shiva' and 'Nova' for an earth-based reactor...

3. So, basically, string theory is mainly popular among authors. This is because it makes no independent predictions which can be experimentally verified; it appears to be a mathematical formulism that agrees with QM without predicting anything new (that can be directly verified) and adds a level of complexity unnecessarily. So, Okham's Razor applies. All correct?

4. Yeah, the feud. It all started when I made an analogy between religion and science (as in my P.P.S. above). Everyone showed me the hate. And I still believe what I said is both logically supportable (as analogies go) and relevant when considering Western society. No offense intended, but I see parallels.

5. Upwards of a trillion cometary nuclei in a spherical shell around our (and possibly every) solar system, none of which are astrogationally plotted would pose a problem in risk analysis for a ship moving at near-light speeds. Launching the ship out of the plane of the ecliptic would avoid most of the matter in our system; but, if http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/headline_universe/solar_system/
stories_2004/sedna_planetoid_march2004.html> Sedna truly indicates the existence of an "inner Oort Cloud", the interstice between inner and outer solar system may be relatively small. (NB: Sedna resides at 900 AU; Oort cloud suspected ~50,000 to 100,000 AU.)

Again, thank you for your insights. I truly value them. Do you ever contemplate the implications of your investigations, or are you more of a "just calculate" guy? It seems somehow unnatural to me not to question underlying fundamental frameworks as an article of 'faith'; but, QM says you can't know, so don't bother asking. Yikes.

Respectfully,

zoid

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
1. My understanding of wormholes is that we are more likely to create very small temporary ones, than stable ones large enough to travel through. Potential uses for such would include telecommunications.

While of greater plausibility than transport, I still hold many a reservation. We're just not at the stage where something like that is even remotely possibly...

Quote:

2. ..."science will be its own undoing": I, as an inhabitant of this planet, am very concerned about the prospect of fusion reactors on Earth. The notion of containing a plasma as hot as the sun within either a magnetic or inertial confinement of Man's manufacture, gives me pause. I'm also not keen on the names 'Shiva' and 'Nova' for an earth-based reactor...

So, yeah, having something go wildly wrong witha fusion reactor poses an immense problem. But there are many other ways to destroy most if not all life on earth that are a lot easier and the technology has already been developed. We just haven't done it yet. What can I say, I'm an optomist.

Quote:

3. So, basically, string theory is mainly popular among authors. This is because it makes no independent predictions which can be experimentally verified; it appears to be a mathematical formulism that agrees with QM without predicting anything new (that can be directly verified) and adds a level of complexity unnecessarily. So, Okham's Razor applies. All correct?

I'll agree to that.

Quote:

5. Upwards of a trillion cometary nuclei in a spherical shell around our (and possibly every) solar system, none of which are astrogationally plotted would pose a problem in risk analysis for a ship moving at near-light speeds. Launching the ship out of the plane of the ecliptic would avoid most of the matter in our system; but, if http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/headline_universe/solar_system/
stories_2004/sedna_planetoid_march2004.html> Sedna truly indicates the existence of an "inner Oort Cloud", the interstice between inner and outer solar system may be relatively small. (NB: Sedna resides at 900 AU; Oort cloud suspected ~50,000 to 100,000 AU.)

Problematic? Yes. An issue? Sure. But if you could get a spacecraft out that far in a reasonable amount of time, you've already solved problems that are a lot harder than that. We're talking a trillion cometary nuclei, a few miles in diameter, over a spherical shell thats, oh, 4PI*(R1-R2)^2 that's... a really big number. It's not un navigably dense out there...

Quote:

Again, thank you for your insights. I truly value them. Do you ever contemplate the implications of your investigations, or are you more of a "just calculate" guy? It seems somehow unnatural to me not to question underlying fundamental frameworks as an article of 'faith'; but, QM says you can't know, so don't bother asking. Yikes.

So I'm bipolar when it comes to science. I really don't think that religion and science have much to say to each other. Philosophical speculation in many ways can hinder science and gets in the way. You start doing things becuase you expect them, not because the theories and math lead you there. Science really should leave the religion out of it's processes.

That said, I'm a fairly religious person. I belive religion has something to say about everything. But that doesn't mean that I confuse the two. I can contemplate the Truths about existence and stand amazed at the incredible creation that is the world, and philosopically contemplate the end products and goals of scientific persuit. I love to philosophize (took a number of philosophy courses for fun in undergrad). But questioning the underlying framework from that perpsective doesn't lead to good science. It leads to good discussion, good philosophy, but not good science. Philosophy/Religion ask Why, whereas Physics asks How. They're fundamentally different persuits, and I think they should pretty much stay that way...

(granted there are arguments to be made about the necessity of their crossing, moral issues and the like, but I just as rather not go into those :-) )

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 12:50 PM

FourSkys wrote:

Quote:
...So I'm bipolar when it comes to science. I really don't think that religion and science have much to say to each other. Philosophical speculation in many ways can hinder science and gets in the way. You start doing things becuase you expect them, not because the theories and math lead you there. Science really should leave the religion out of it's processes.

That said, I'm a fairly religious person. I belive religion has something to say about everything. But that doesn't mean that I confuse the two. I can contemplate the Truths about existence and stand amazed at the incredible creation that is the world, and philosopically contemplate the end products and goals of scientific persuit. I love to philosophize (took a number of philosophy courses for fun in undergrad). But questioning the underlying framework from that perpsective doesn't lead to good science. It leads to good discussion, good philosophy, but not good science. Philosophy/Religion ask Why, whereas Physics asks How. They're fundamentally different persuits, and I think they should pretty much stay that way...

My last stab at clarifying my position on this issue: Yes, I am a deist and a Christian. But, I don't expect to find God's handiwork through science. I believe God created the universe and likewise made it a whole puzzle for the mind of Humankind. You will never lift some corner of the universe's 'carpet' and find a tag reading, "Made by God, (c) 4000 B.C. Do not remove under penalty of The Law."

As such, Science is on its own, as are we all. There are no given answers; we must find them on our own or not at all. Hell, maybe there are no answers, only questions and hints.

What I was trying to say -- and was soundly spanked for even suggesting it -- is that science is like a religion in that it has basic tenets of 'faith' (things it believes even though these haven't and possibly may never be proven), and uncomfortably coexisting sects (differing schools of thought based on the same principles). I'd like to refer the reader to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics and specifically the section on that page entitled "Comparison". Even though the most commonly believed (there's that word again) 'interpretations' hold the same basic principles to be inviolable, their adherents come to some radically differing conclusions (unless you don't think a single universe v. an infinity of universes is a radical divergence). Likewise, even though most scientists engaging in these endeavors adhere to Dirac's commandment, "Just shut up and calculate", they nonetheless wind up falling into one of these schools of thought; wackiness and occasional name-calling ensues. I cannot help but see a parallel between this and Franciscan v. Dominican v. Benedictine, as one of many examples in religion. And then of course, you have those who adhere to ('believe in') wildly variant fundamental principles, and careers (and research grants) may hang in the balance.

To sum up, I'm not saying science is a religion that replaces God in the mind of scientists, per se; but rather that it has a lot in parallel with religion, in terms of its framework. That was all I was trying to say then (although that discussion escalated beyond reason), and that's all I'm trying to say now. I'm not saying science should try to find God or be somehow informed by a belief in Him. I'm not trying to say Science is trying to replace God. (NB: ...And good luck to It, if It is. Religions have been trying to replace each other for millenia, and we can all see how that's working out.) I do not read my little science books trying to debunk science or find the hand of God in the universe. I read them because I'm genuinely interested in what we as humans know about our universe and our place in it, and what remains to be known and what roads we are taking to get there (I'm also fascinated by the spontaneous generation of complexity, vis-a-vis an explanation of the 'staccato' fossil record). I find it all fascinating, even though most everyone I know thinks I'm nuts for reading this stuff for entertainment. I believe the only chance Humankind has against a Malthusian outcome is the advancement of the sciences. Although we may only be putting off the inevitable in this case, perhaps if we can continue delaying the crash, we may one day spread to other livable spaces.

So, keep up the good work. I'm not going to respond further, unless asked a specific question; but I will continue to read along, in hopes of some responses to my 'poll' questions in my initial post (as opposed to my philosophical meanderings thereafter, which I agree are not in the scientific spirit). I'm still interested in definitive answers to those questions -- from your personal viewpoint -- if your personal process will allow such consideration. If it does not, then saying, "I do not speculate on n-dimensional space because..." for example, would be a satisfactory 'definitive answer' to my question.

Thanks again for your time and thoughts...

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
I'd never make a good scientist, for the same reason I don't make a good congregationalist: I don't like being told what to think. I believe the scientific investigation (like God or Life's lessons) should make itself known to me, without being filtered through other people's interpreted and codified notions. I suspect this would make me a very slow climber in such a career, and at odds with everyone who falls into an 'interpretation group'.

So, I'll just stick to reading the available literature and having fun wondering about the universe. Youse guys can have the formalism and 'don't ask questions' ground rules. I couldn't turn off my imagination if I tried.
_________________________________________________

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word." -Niels Bohr

"Nothing exists until it is measured." -ibid
(What comes into being after Nothing is measured and ceases to exist? -zed, having fun with semantics)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:

P.S.
As far as the body cavity search thing goes: Your sig at the time was something along the lines of "You can get a really good cross-section of human mental illness in an airport waiting area -Me" or some such (edited, to be nice). Quoting oneself is (edited, to be nice). I then stated that if I ever saw you (or anyone else for that matter) sitting in my terminal casing the other passengers and wearing a tinfoil hat I'd have airport security body cavity search them. I stand by that statement.

If you're going to quote me, then quote me. By stating this I will assume that you don't actually have the quote. And you never stated that "if I ever saw you ..." prefix in your reply to me, you just stated if I ever saw you...

So, if you have time to look up the thread and prove me wrong, go right ahead. I don't have the time to waste.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:

I like your new sig much better. Mr. Rogers, Canada, bricks and Jon Stewart. I think it pretty much sums up your personal philosophy, too. Have a nice life...

I find it funny at this point that you are pointing out to me my personal philosophy having never met me nor have you ever really had a meaningful conversation for me. Tad arrogant are we?

So, why don't you enlighten us by what my personal philosophy is? Because, quite frankly, I just found it funny (by the way, I am Canadian).

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:

P.P.S.
Science is a belief system with its own dogma and sects. I mention this because, what the hell? I'm already in trouble with SigmaNunki. How much worse could it possibly get?

Please read:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief%20system

Belief system does not have anything resembling sect (read: orgaization).

Also, in it's colloquial meaning, it does refer to something of a religion. Which we all know that science is definitly not (provable).

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Actually there is a little criterion concerning zero mass. To travel at speed of light something must have zero mass, otherwise momentum becomes infinite at the speed of light. And beyond the speed of light, the mass must be negative. If you assume negative mass is meaningful and extant, then a massive objective simply cannot accelerate (or decelerate) to the speed of light.

So if you don’t rule out magic, a lot of possibilities open up.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

I was just not discounting future developments. Things do change radically from time to time.

*sigh* I've spent too much time in pure math. Going to have to refresh my physics.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:23 PM

@FourSkys:
Also, according to Dr. Greene's infomercial, string theory doesn't allow for wormholes.

I have no doubt that science cannot be its own undoing. It will evolve as it makes new discovers and perhaps in a few centeries, it'll look very different.

I would think that the only part science may play in mankinds undoing, is when some dumbass gets hold of something that they don't understand and mis-uses it. My only hope is that, as a race, when we get far enough when that becomes possible, that we've learned enough that that is highly unlikely.

@Zoid wrote:
"""
but, QM says you can't know, so don't bother asking. Yikes.
"""
I would think that it would be more appropriate to say that we are just coming to start to understand what QM says. Maybe in the next few decades some questions will be answered. But, I would gather that more tougher questions would be added to the list.

And physics is not faith.

From the wife:
QM does not say that you cannot know about the underlying framework, it only places limitations on how much you can know.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:56 PM

Zoid wrote:
"""
Likewise, even though most scientists engaging in these endeavors adhere to Dirac's commandment, "Just shut up and calculate",
"""

In my experience, knowning people pesonally from 3 Universities. Most? No. Some? Yes.

Zoid wrote:
"""
I don't like being told what to think.
So, I'll just stick to reading the available literature and having fun wondering about the universe. Youse guys can have the formalism and 'don't ask questions' ground rules. I couldn't turn off my imagination if I tried.
"""

From the wife:
This is exactly why a lot of people go into the science; because they are questioning things. It's an important part of the scientific culture to question things but on the other hand to know where it makes sense to rely on other peoples results. Knowing the difference and being able to do both is exactly what makes a good scientist. The bad ones are those that never question things.

Applying the formalism to find out more about the universe actually makes it more fun. Reading pop science books is (with very few exceptions) like watching a movie with the sound turned off: you get some vague ideas, you see some pretty pictures, but you don't understand what it's all about.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 6:41 PM

SigmaNunki:

Some movement away from the precipice of our dis-communication, perhaps? I welcome that.

You wrote:

Quote:
...Applying the formalism to find out more about the universe actually makes it more fun. Reading pop science books is (with very few exceptions) like watching a movie with the sound turned off: you get some vague ideas, you see some pretty pictures, but you don't understand what it's all about.

...But not everyone can be a physicist. Who would carry away the trash? Who would keep the peace on our streets? Stop our houses from burning down? Keep our skies (and airport terminals

) safe? Go to the jungles of PNG to provide desperately needed medical services? (NB: With a tip o' the tam to minime, whom I'm still sending regular updates of FFFn. Browncoats might consider emailing her sometime. She's terribly isolated. How would you like to be stuck in the boondocks watching 4-year olds die of curable illnesses, with only zoid emailing you? *shiver*)

What about the rest of us non-physicists? Should we just mind our own business, if we haven't been schooled with the rod of formalism? Can we lesser humans not wonder and seek knowledge, too? If we ask those who have traveled such paths what they have found along their way, can we only expect to be told that we could never hope to understand?

Maybe so. In which case, perhaps we must settle for a "movie with the sound turned off", or else live in darkness...

Respectfully,

zoid

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 7:35 PM

THEGREYJEDI

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, with regards to the faster than light thing. The only thing that is stated is that things can't accelerate to the speed of light. It says nothing about things already at the speed of light and/or beyond. Nor does anything state that there isn't another way to get to speed without acceleration. It's just that that is the only way we know how right now.

That being said, there is nothing to indicate that there is another way to get to speed aside from accelerating.
Actually there is a little criterion concerning zero mass. To travel at speed of light something must have zero mass, otherwise momentum becomes infinite at the speed of light. And beyond the speed of light, the mass must be negative. If you assume negative mass is meaningful and extant, then a massive objective simply cannot accelerate (or decelerate) to the speed of light.

So if you don’t rule out magic, a lot of possibilities open up.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

Which is why I like my idea. If we can pop into the fourth dimension, we could travel distances along the same position in time. Likewise same position in space, different position in time. Just hope you don't travel to a position in time or space where there's, say, an orbiting planet or star. That'd end your day real quick. At least all that's my little theory. I have no clue what the scientific relevance of the whole thing is. Might all be hogwash. But it would solve the acceleration/zero mass issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Engineer - USS SereniTREE
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
Real Fans Wait - 09/30/05

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:52 PM

THEFORGE

Quote:
Originally posted by StarPilotGrainger:
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."

Ender's Game RULES! ...yo Grainger, go nova!

I like your idea about constant 1g acceleration, though I'd have to sit down and do the math (after remembering) to figure out how long it would take you to get to any significant speed. As far as your thought of a brief period of freefall: You could simply have your ship make a wide turn using some sort of RCS - without cutting the main drive - until it pointed in the opposite direction. That would eliminate any weightlessness. If you stretched that manouver out over a long enough period of time, the passengers/crew would barely notice the change in direction.

Orbiting a planet would present a difficulty to this method of artificial gravity...with centrifugal/centrepital forces being equal, you're back to freefall. Bah!

(Oh well...freeze your shooting arm, freeze those knees, blast the other toon to pieces!)

"The Killing Sword...The Life-Giving Sword"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 11:21 PM

BARKINGDOC

This doesn't have very much to do with any advanced concepts of physics: Just addressing the fuel issue in Firefly (and possible real travel)--- whatever you ultimately discover about propulsion and velocity, it appears to me that Serenity draws all of its power, including life support, from it's engine, which runs on fuel. Direct fuel is always going to be the easiest and most bang-for-your-buck way of powering any motorized vehicle (as opposed to batteries or something else less efficient and reliable) so it seems like a legitimate concern--- at least from a storytelling standpoint, but also probably from a real world perpective as well. If you are building a single craft to perform a single trip in a single direction, then a single launch and stored energy would be groovy. But a Firefly wants to keep flying forever, wherever it wants to go, as well as being a home to those on board. And that means money for gas, baby, however you can get it.

As for velocity and fusion and all the other science, I absolutely love talking about it, and I hope that as long as Firefly/Serenity lives such things NEVER become a part of the story in the ridiuclous ways they have on other sci-fi. I for one am happy to know the engine runs and they use some kind of fuel for it. Including silly psuedo-science just makes stories less and less about real humans living their lives.

God grant me steel to protect the folks I cannot charge,
the cash on hand to charge the folks I can,
and the wisdom to know when to break for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:25 AM

BarkingDoc:

I -- along with many others -- am intrigued by the gravitational aspects of Serenity's (and every other ship in the 'verse?) propulsion and environmental systems. It has been suggested that it's just a convenience to keep the actors from having to deliver lines while floating around the ship, as in every other sci-fi property from Star Trek to Star Wars and beyond.

But the author(s) have gone out of their way to include terms like 'grav boot' when describing Serenity's drive, and in the pilot, Mal and his cohorts are weightless -- as are the crates they are towing -- until they reenter Serenity and close the cargo door, at which time the crates fall to the deck. When Mal and Zoe describe the terraforming efforts on the Rim (again from the pilot), she says, "...All those moons -- just like the central planets, they're as close to Earth-That-Was as we could make 'em: atmosphere, gravity and such, but..." (emphasis mine). Something purposeful is going on as regards artificial gravity, or else the writers -- including JW in the pilot -- are going out of their way to rub our noses in a convenient dramatic device. And the gravity stays on, even when Serenity's drive is disabled ("Out of Gas")...

This is why I always figured Mal's homeworld of Shadow was destroyed by the Alliance simply turning off the planet(oid)'s gravity generator(s). Just let the atmospheric gases explode away from the surface under their own pressure, once the Earth-normal gravity was turned off. That'd be a nasty way for an entire planetoid's ecosystem to die...

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
I've always playfully thought the sequels to "Serenity" should be "Shadow" and "Firefly". Did anyone read Joss' post about Summer portraying Kitty Pryde in X3? He mentions the sequels as: "SERENITY II: RICARDO MONTALBAN'S STILL PISSED" ("Wrath of Khan" reference, for the uninitiated) and "SERENITY III: SO VERY NUDE". I definitely like his 3rd idea better than mine...
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea..." -The Ballad of Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:28 PM

@zoid:
Dude, you missed my point enitrely (as you have all along).

First off, it was my wife that wrote that, not me. And that was just to say, that we should all know the limitations of what we know/our capabilities/etc. ie I'll never write a great novel, but I probably stand to do some good work in math or physics or...

Second, I never stated that you couldn't know, but that you don't. And I stated this explicitly above. Please read my posts, I don't think that I should have to state this yet again.

Thirdly, I don't expect everyone to be a physicist. Just that they accept that the don't actually know and acknowledge there limitations (which you've yet to actually do).

Asking questions is always a good thing. Giving answers is a good thing as well. It is never bad when knowledge is spead. My problem is when people spread clear dis-information (well, clear to those who know).

Now, I don't expect the average Joe to know that they don't understand if they indeed don't, as they typically don't have someone who actually knows to bounce what they think off of.

But when these people spread what they think (which is wrong) around, that is when I step in (or try to anyway) to correct the situation when I can.

The actual problem comes in when the people that don't know take offense and don't acknowledge that they don't know crying foul and such.

This is my problem with you. In that last thread I proved that you didn't know what you were talking about and you freaked out. You lashed out at me not even taking the time to assimilate the correct information. Which you are actually doing again now in a less agressive fashon than before.

So, ask away. Just don't get pissy when someone proves you wrong/corrects you/etc.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:33 PM