Gravity Control! by Calhoun

This doesnt interest anyone? Not even enough to pass comment?

Superluminal travel people!

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:14 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE

This is pretty cool, way above my head though. My nucleus is spinning.
Are you gonna send your name to Mars?

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:55 AM

WULFHAWK

This site smells like scam to me. I hope you aren't counting on zooming off to Mars, or even across the street, with gravity control. They were even rejected by the X-prize people. I hate to even lend enough credence to this by bumping this thread with a response.

Take my love
Take my land

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:09 AM

I know what you mean, it does smell like a scam but if you read through all the scientific information on the site its very hard to poke holes in it. I know they want funding but hey why wouldnt they. I want to believe..

Gravity control must be attainable otherwise how do the UFO's zip about the sky like they do?

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:14 AM

Quote:
Gravity control must be attainable otherwise how do the UFO's zip about the sky like they do?

Same way unicorns do, I'll reckon.

-Steve

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:47 AM

You dont believe in UFO's Steve580?

This multiverse we live in is so so so so VAST that the statistical probability of an alien race mastering gravity and hence being able to zip around anywhere they want(eg.Earth) must be about 99.99999999999%.

At the risk of further lowering my credibility I personaly have seen UFOs on a few occasions even with witnesses..

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:35 PM

Not sure...never seen one personally; my best friend claims to have, when he was real young. Guess if I saw one, I'd beleive in 'em. Till then, I'm a bit speculative. You'd think with their advanced technology, they could avoid being seen if they wanted...
-Steve

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:44 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Not sure...never seen one personally; my best friend claims to have, when he was real young. Guess if I saw one, I'd beleive in 'em.

You did see one, we just erased your memory of it when we went in with that pro...er, um...yeah, skeptical...good for you.

RIVER
Purple elephants are flying.
MAL
Good. Thanks for the update.

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 5:21 PM

LTNOWIS

I've seen a ufo, but it looked really crappy. It was a tiny ball with three downward-facing prongs sitcking out, spinning as it move across the sky silently. It looked a lot like a satellite.

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:13 PM

FLYINFREE

I read over the site and from my understanding it boils down to tapping into and draining the energy contained in all matter and space to power various devices and effects. Assuming for a moment that all this is true and correct, what happens when you drain away that energy? According to the website the ZPF energy supplies/controls gravity, inertia, subatomic and atomic bonding/reactions, etc. If you drain away the energy field running and stabilizing these forces won't you completely destabilize the area of space being drained? If so you would be creating highly dangerous and unstable areas of space where gravity, movement, physics, etc. are completely disrupted. I would hate to be the poor sucker standing there when that happens! Also according to the site there is enough energy in a cup of space to boil away all of Earth's oceans, can the release of this energy get out of control? Could you accidently trigger an explosion big enough to wipe out a planet?

Just some thoughts from a layman, not trying to do the typical schtick of turning every new technology into sci-fi's next doomsday scenario (ie. AI=Terminator). Just thought using an energy source you don't understand might have a few pitfalls.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:37 PM

I am excited by the potential of this research. The scientists seem to be of high calibre and come across as very believable to me. This is my limited understanding of the research:

By utilizing frequency-coupled plasma fields and monatomic superconductors (natural superconductors), controlled interactions between atomic/subatomic particles and the Zero Point Field of energy (formerly known as "the ether") can be achieved. These controlled interactions can exert an interactive force on the ZPF and the reaction used for propellantless flight or the generation of clean energy.

The potential benefits far out-weigh the risks as far as i'm concerned. If this new science pans out the planet could be saved.

Bill Gates should put some big bucks into this research and fast track it!

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:11 PM

MOMAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Quote:
Gravity control must be attainable otherwise how do the UFO's zip about the sky like they do?

Same way unicorns do, I'll reckon.
-Steve

Pegasi fly, unicorns do not. Honestly, haven't you been keeping up on modern science at all?!

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:31 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE

You said Pegasi.
He he he

-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

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

Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:37 PM

HOTPOINT

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
If you drain away the energy field running and stabilizing these forces won't you completely destabilize the area of space being drained?

...can the release of this energy get out of control? Could you accidently trigger an explosion big enough to wipe out a planet?

I think it was Arthur C Clarke who joked about some distant Supernovae being the Industrial Accidents of highly advanced technological species

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 1:41 AM

FLYINFREE

Quote:
The potential benefits far out-weigh the risks as far as i'm concerned. If this new science pans out the planet could be saved.

Destabilizing space-time or blowing up the Earth are pretty big risks for fast ships and cheap power. Yes there are benefits and I'm not saying it shouldn't be researched, I'm a big supporter of knowledge even for it's own sake. I'm just saying when you tap into such a vastly powerful and almost totally unknown area a lot of care should be taken and questions asked before leaping headlong into the void.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 2:21 AM

Agreed.

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 2:32 AM

GROUNDED

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:

This multiverse we live in is so so so so VAST that the statistical probability of an alien race mastering gravity and hence being able to zip around anywhere they want(eg.Earth) must be about 99.99999999999%.

But if the universe is so vast then the statistical probability of them finding us is...

This is Fermi Paradox territory

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 2:53 AM

DRAKON

From looking at it, it looks like some of the Zero Point Energy folks are up and running. Is it a scam? That is a good question and unfortunately from the design of the site, it's very iffy. My first gut check tells me is just another bunch trying to siphon money away from gullible UFO nuts.

I could be, and really hope I am, wrong. It does have the buzzwords right, (BEC, ZPF, superdeformed high spin states as partial examples) But referencing a famer's discovery of monoatomics is not something that builds confidence.

I note that several of his monoatomic compounds contain more than one atom, or element. Non-standard usage of terminology is usually associated with either crank or fraud sites. Usually.

To date nobody has a clue just what spin is. It operates mathematically like a spinning object, but we run into weird things like objects that have to spin around twice to get back where they started, instead of just once.

ZPE is not at present known to exist, nor is a method on how to extract usable energy from it known. Its a theoretical construct to date. IT makes reference to aether in several places, and I am not sure if this as an analogy, or if they are claiming this is an aether.

I would recommend not investing in them, or giving them money at this stage. Keep an eye on them, as they may show something interesting. There is a high probability that this is a hoax, or a crackpot site. I would love to be proved wrong, but I have been through this before.

Another poster had started off about how probable UFOs are. (Or to be precise to the point of boredom, the extra-terrestrial hypothesis for the source of UFOs) While astronomic and biological factors seem condusive to life springing up practically anywhere there is liquid water, going from basic life to a technically advanced civilization is not nearly such a sure thing. We can look at the several near misses in human history (Cuban Missile Crisis as one example) and show that it is not always a sure bet that a species that developes civilization will survive the technology it creates.

But more importantly, we are basing the analysis on a single sample. We are the only ones we know exist. We have no clue as to whether there are other civilizations out there, or whether or not they have any kind of space travel. So assigning any kind of probability to this question is sheer guesswork.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Momaw:
Pegasi fly, unicorns do not. Honestly, haven't you been keeping up on modern science at all?!

Well, the question was "How do UFO's fly"; so the answer I was getting at is, "The same was unicorns do: not at all, because neither exist."

While pegasises probably would have made a better comparison, I just couldn't figure out how to write them in plural.

-Steve

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 11:17 AM

ADEPTUS

My take on it is this: If I were on my way to developing an anit-gravity drive, I'd dang sure wouldn't post any of my research to the net. Nope, I'd keep a real tight lid on it because when/if I was successful I'd be the only company with the tech. Can't make as much money if everybody else and their brother can make the same stuff you can. So I'm thinking it's a scam.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 11:31 AM

Heya Drakon,

I know what you mean, the claims the web site make seem very fanciful, still.. I want to believe.

As far as the possiblity of an alien race becoming technologically advanced enough to achieve interstellar travel - My opinion rests in mathematics, the number of stars out there is virtually inconcievable. One analogy I have heard is that in our own galaxy there are more stars than grains of sand on our entire planet and a similar number of galaxies make up our universe. I think it is now widely accepted that there is more than one universe out there(multiverse), I suspect probably there is a vast number of universes out there as well. Now THAT is a big number of stars. Even if only a tiny fraction of them has planets conducive to life and only a tiny fraction of these planets develop technologically advanced civilisations then we are still talking about an incredible number of species taking to the stars.

This is a bet i'll prolly never get to collect on but I bet some of these civilisations have mastered gravity..

~Keep Flying~

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 9:56 PM

MOMAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:

One analogy I have heard is that in our own galaxy there are more stars than grains of sand on our entire planet

Woah! Let's not get carried away, now!

A quick websearch gives the figure 100,000,000,000 (very roughly) stars in our galaxy as a working theory.

Let's assume that you're talking about some fairly coarse sand, each grain about 1 cubic mm. So we're talking 10E10mm^3 of sand, one grain for each star. Make that a bit more workable... A cubic meter is 10E8mm^3. Divide that. So we need a hundred cubic meters of sand. Which is a decent amount, but nowhere NEAR what's on the planet as a whole.

Another way of looking at it: the land surface area of Terra is around 150 million square kilometers. If you distributed our 100m^3 of sand evenly over that, you'd only have 666.6[..] grains of sand per square Km.

Space is insanely vast, but there's plenty of things that are insanely tiny too.

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

Friday, February 13, 2004 10:17 PM

DRAGONFLYDIRECTOR

Um ... a 100 billion stars ... where did you get your websearched info? Just curious, not being sarcastic.

My quicky 'Number of stars in the Milky Way' search garnered a variance from 3 billion to 400 Billion stars or 3,000,000,000 to 400,000,000,000 from various educational sites.

Researchers have 'generally' decided that ,with the current tech, it is near impossable to define how many stars there are in our galaxy.

Mostly because of the compaction of stellar matter that happens near the core. You do know that the center of the galatic core is 'generally' considered to be a massive black hole. Which has been determined, by some, via the x-ray and gamma output from the core.

Anyhoo, I believe the quote was from Carl Sagan and concerned planets and planet sized bodies, not stars, in the Milky Way.

"Observe Analyze & Respond"
Motto of the A.P.E.s
Alliance Protean Engineers

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 12:08 AM

Yeah DragonFlyDirector, I wasnt sure exactly where I got that quote from, thought it may have been Steven Hawking but it could well have been Carl Sagan. Anyhoows I still stand by my earlier statement:

"Even if only a tiny fraction of them has planets conducive to life and only a tiny fraction of these planets develop technologically advanced civilisations then we are still talking about an incredible number of species taking to the stars."

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 12:29 AM

Well ok, I may have misrepresented the figures regarding grains of sand and our galaxy.

I have however found some interesting information at http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s910295.htm

Basically it says..

The universe contains about 70 sextillion - or 70 thousand million million million. This is not the total number of stars in the universe, but it's the number within range of our telescopes.70 sextillion is greater than the estimated number of sand grains on all the world's beaches and deserts - about 10 times more.

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 12:32 AM

DRAGONFLYDIRECTOR

Calhoun
Actually I was supporting you. The question was directed at Momaw.

And this:

Quote:
"Even if only a tiny fraction of them has planets conducive to life and only a tiny fraction of these planets develop technologically advanced civilisations then we are still talking about an incredible number of species taking to the stars."

IS from Carl Sagan - nearly verbatium.

Heh, just gotta be careful of our examples.

Now, I thought we were speaking on the # of stars in the Milky Way...

... You just gave the total 'estimated' stars of our universe.

Which is it we are discussing?

I only skimmed the thread, so I may have missed the 'change-over'.

Oh, btw, you can 'call' me DFD.

"Observe Analyze & Respond"
Motto of the A.P.E.s
Alliance Protean Engineers

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 1:40 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
Heya Drakon,

I know what you mean, the claims the web site make seem very fanciful, still.. I want to believe.

Don't get me wrong. I want to too. Nobody wants off this rock more than me.

Quote:

As far as the possiblity of an alien race becoming technologically advanced enough to achieve interstellar travel - My opinion rests in mathematics, the number of stars out there is virtually inconcievable. One analogy I have heard is that in our own galaxy there are more stars than grains of sand on our entire planet and a similar number of galaxies make up our universe. I think it is now widely accepted that there is more than one universe out there(multiverse), I suspect probably there is a vast number of universes out there as well. Now THAT is a big number of stars. Even if only a tiny fraction of them has planets conducive to life and only a tiny fraction of these planets develop technologically advanced civilisations then we are still talking about an incredible number of species taking to the stars.

This is a bet i'll prolly never get to collect on but I bet some of these civilisations have mastered gravity..

~Keep Flying~

Okay a few points.
1) The number of stars is estimated in the ballpark of about 100 million. Most of which are either too short lived, or too cold to support life (As we know it, yes, yes. We don't know life as we Don't know it, so lets not get into that kind of debate)

2) Recent research indicates that this galaxy did not become suitable for life sustaining planet until about 1 to 3 billion years before our own solar system was formed. You need a mix of carbon and other stuff, all of which had to be processed through stars from hydrogen and then novaed back out into the black. Even though the galaxy is about 10 billion years older than this solar system, it did not have high enough concentrations of carbon and the like to support life.

3) Intelligence is not the only path for species survival. All of the various incidents and "lucky accidents" that made up human evolution, that allowed for the development of the brain and the opposable thumb are not as clearly understood as we'd like, but what we do know, its hard to imagine it being a common occurance.

You need a brachiating (tree swinging) speices that for some reason is forced from the trees, due to drought, or some other catatrosphy. (In our case, it is believed to be the uplift that gave rise to the eastern mountain range in Africa)

[Look at all the "natural biped" like kangaroos and T-rexxs. Weak almost useless upper limbs.]

After you get that, you have to have a species that developes agriculture and gets good enough at it that it can predict surpluses. This frees folks from farming to do things like smithing, or pyramid designing.

You need concepts of logic, and a particular way of looking at the world. You need to think that the world is understandable, not ruled by demons, or mischievous godlings, and that it can be predicted.

And, I think, you need a concept of liberty or freedom, to encourage individuals to utilize their brains, try new things, with minimum interference from others. You need something to override the impulse to always do what you always did, to try new things.

There is a lot of cultural stuff that went into our own climb out of the gravity well. And there are even still today folks who want to keep the old ways, even if those ways were new a thousand years ago. And lets face it, if we were not here, doing what we are doing, it would not be a problem.

There is also the increasing risk of a "Fermi Plague" As you know, Fermi's paradox asked why, if there is intelligence out there, they have not contacted us yet. One proposed solution looks at our own development and offers this answer: As technology increases, fewer and fewer people are required to make bigger and bigger changes. At the extreme, you get one guy, who screws up, and ends up nuking (or otherwise killing off) the planet.

So I am not as optimistic as you about finding anybody else out there. I could be wrong, and indeed, hope I am. But not at all sure that the mathematics backs you up as much as you would like.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 2:02 AM

MOMAW

I got my 100B figure from here:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=31

Two years out of date, but...

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 2:43 AM

DFD, Initially I was comparing grains of sand to stars in our galaxy but it appears I was incorrect and in the later post conceded my error and pointed toward the website comparing grains of sand to stars in the universe. Any way you look at it there are a lot of stars out there and it just seems to me that the potential for the development of a superior species which has mastered gravity (assuming this is possible, as I do) is overwhelming. Appologies for the confusion :)

~keep Flying~

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 3:14 AM

Drakon,

1) I was just tryin to impress the point that there is a lot of stars out there, I concede the number in our galaxy does not appear to be as great as I had thought 100mill to 400mill is what I now discover after searching. Conservative estimates of ten times more stars in the universe than grains of sand on our planet still makes this point valid.

2) I'm not really that convinced that we as a species can say unequivocably that life could or couldnt have formed here or there. Though I have seen similar research.

3) You'll probably laugh at me for this one but understand its VERY speculative. I believe that an alien race interfered with human development at some stage in our past. Have you ever read a book called "Chariots of the Gods"? If not, I recommend it as a very ineresting read. There is a lot of evidence in it to support the theory.

Ok Ok.. Stop laughing at me and read the damn book!

As far as mathematics backing me up in my opinion of the potential for a species to attain control of gravity... 70 million million million stars is a lot of stars and thats a conservative estimate and just for this universe. Some scientists believe the number of stars "out there" to be infinite. In a number that large I just believe its very probable.

Whoaa.. heavy thread :)

~Keep Flying~

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 4:55 AM

One has to be careful here--I think I am detecting a common logical flaw. An infinite number of possibilities does not imply that all things are possible. [Apologies, but this is a pet peeve of mine with my students.]

For example, consider all possible numbers that lie between (and including) zero and one on a number line. Any mathematician can tell you that there are infinitely many such numbers. In fact, there are UNCOUNTABLY many such numbers (uncountable infinity is the largest "type" of infinity we can define). Ok, so there are uncountably many such numbers. How many are bigger than 5? None. How many are as large as one--only one. Even if there are an infinite (though probably only countably infinite) number of planet, stars, whatever, that doesn't mean that there is even one civilization with FTL capability. It'd be nice though.

Cheers all.

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 5:20 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
Drakon,

1) I was just tryin to impress the point that there is a lot of stars out there, I concede the number in our galaxy does not appear to be as great as I had thought 100mill to 400mill is what I now discover after searching. Conservative estimates of ten times more stars in the universe than grains of sand on our planet still makes this point valid.

Oh understand completely. I would limit the scope to this galaxy, or at the very least(???) the observable universe, simply because right now we don't know whats on the other side of observable.

Quote:

2) I'm not really that convinced that we as a species can say unequivocably that life could or couldnt have formed here or there. Though I have seen similar research.

Okay, I am a bit of a geek (really??

) I did a research project a while back on this very subject. There is a way of getting a better guess than simply pulling numbers out of the air. But it is still a guess.

You break it down to smaller questions, like what is the probability that life started elsewhere, how likely are the conditions of life, that sort of thing. Drake's equation (which Cricton hates). That gives you a better guess, and its still not quite certain.

Quote:
3) You'll probably laugh at me for this one but understand its VERY speculative. I believe that an alien race interfered with human development at some stage in our past. Have you ever read a book called "Chariots of the Gods"? If not, I recommend it as a very ineresting read. There is a lot of evidence in it to support the theory.

Ok Ok.. Stop laughing at me and read the damn book!

Have I read it? LOL. I got all five of his books. This is kinda where I am coming from. I went through all this stuff years ago, and got into all the UFO research and Von Daniken stuff. It boils down to one person's interpretation of the data, and such data is not sufficient to rule out any competiting theories.

Before Von Daniken, Carl Sagan wrote a paper about just this question, trying to identify markers in mythology that might indicate an extra-terrestrial origin. One of the Babylonian gods fits into this "syndrom" Sagan had figured out. But again, that does not prove anything, it does not conclusively rule out other explainations.

After a while, I found the signal to noise ratio overwhelming. Poor argumentative logic, a failure to rule out other, more mundane possibilities. So I will buy this whole extra-terrestrial visitors stuff when one lands and picks me up. Not before then.

Quote:
As far as mathematics backing me up in my opinion of the potential for a species to attain control of gravity... 70 million million million stars is a lot of stars and thats a conservative estimate and just for this universe. Some scientists believe the number of stars "out there" to be infinite. In a number that large I just believe its very probable.

Ouch. I don't think infinity is a real thing. I don't believe in infinite numbers of stars. It may be a very very very very big number, but that still ain't infinite.

Also, remember you are not just talking about some gravity controlling alien species out there, you are talking about ones that actually made it to this hardly remarkable planet, on the unfashionable side of this galaxy. With humans onboard. See how the problem gets a bit stickier?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 5:33 AM

Infinity. Dear me. Another of my pet peeves. I agree with the statement that there are not an infinite number of stars. Any number, no matter how large, is still finite. As for infinity being a real thing, well, infinity is not a number. The rules of arithmetic do not apply to it, so points off from calculus students for adding, subtracting, dividing and multiplying with that funny little symbol that looks like a sleepy eight. Nonetheless, is a perfectly reasonable (real) concept. It as reasonable a concept as, say, the concept of justice.

Sorry if this is pedantic!

Cheers, all!

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:30 AM

JASONZZZ

Well... infinity as we people define it anyways. There is infinity out there, our minds aren't structured to grasp it.

Quote:
Originally posted by shortgeek:
Infinity. Dear me. Another of my pet peeves. I agree with the statement that there are not an infinite number of stars. Any number, no matter how large, is still finite. As for infinity being a real thing, well, infinity is not a number. The rules of arithmetic do not apply to it, so points off from calculus students for adding, subtracting, dividing and multiplying with that funny little symbol that looks like a sleepy eight. Nonetheless, is a perfectly reasonable (real) concept. It as reasonable a concept as, say, the concept of justice.

Sorry if this is pedantic!

Cheers, all!

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 11:08 AM

If the universe or multiverse doesnt go on forever (infinitely) then what do you suppose is beyond when it ends? Some say there is just black at the end of the universe, but how far does the black go and if it aint infinite then what is beyond it?

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 11:54 AM

Urf. I think I was misunderstood. Infinity is a real (i.e definable) concept. It is well understood mathematically by defining it to be that which is unbounded. (So it is defined by what it is not.) My point is that infinity is not a number like 5 or a zillion. The sleepy eight is just shorthand for the concept of unboundedness. The symbol looks like a number, but unboundedness is not a numerical concept like 5 and a zillion. Arithmetic with a non-numerical object is not defined in the mathematical sense. Ok. Tiresome, I know.

Point is this: If you want to, you can believe there are an infinite number of planets. It still does not logically follow that having an infinite number of possibilities implies that every conceivable possibility is realized. So even if there are an infinite number of planets, that doesn't mean that one of them has produced a faster-than-light technology.

Cheers all!

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 12:49 PM

When talking infinity or just large numbers such as 70 sextillion all I am saying is that it "logically follows" that it is very PROBABLE that some species out there would have mastered gravity thereby having FTL drive. I never implied that every conceivable possiblity is realized.

Its an opinion and it mine!

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 1:12 PM

Oif. My apologies. I don't mean to offend. I should watch the tone of my prose. I am much better with numbers.

Just sayin': Beware the logical flaw. The numbers between zero and one comprise an infinite set. What is the probability that one of them is greater than five? The probability is zero.

I return to the dark corners to lurk.

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 1:17 PM

RUXTON

Those who know nothing of anti-gravity search for Fran DeAquino. He has it. He used to work in Brazil but is now in the employ of the U.S. Also check the work of Col. Thomas Bearden, who has a PATENT on the use of the zero-point free energy. That means he has a WORKING MODEL which illustrated the principle. As soon as anti-grav is a reality, which it is -- though in what scale is questionable -- and superluminal velocity is a reality, which it is, you have viable space travel.

Wake up, people, you're being lied to, and not by me. USE the Internet. LEARN SOMETHING!

A couple of you posters are ignoramuses. Take a night-vision device outdoors on a clear night, away from city lights, turn it on LOW power, and look at the stars. I guarantee all doubts about extraterrestrial life will go away instantly.

.......Ruxton

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 2:02 PM

Hey there Ruxton,

Ive never had the chance to use a night vision device and am curious as to why you would set it to low power? Wouldnt it be better to crank it up as high as you could get?

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 6:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Those who know nothing of anti-gravity search for Fran DeAquino. He has it. He used to work in Brazil but is now in the employ of the U.S. Also check the work of Col. Thomas Bearden, who has a PATENT on the use of the zero-point free energy. That means he has a WORKING MODEL which illustrated the principle. As soon as anti-grav is a reality, which it is -- though in what scale is questionable -- and superluminal velocity is a reality, which it is, you have viable space travel.

Wake up, people, you're being lied to, and not by me. USE the Internet. LEARN SOMETHING!

A couple of you posters are ignoramuses. Take a night-vision device outdoors on a clear night, away from city lights, turn it on LOW power, and look at the stars. I guarantee all doubts about extraterrestrial life will go away instantly.

I see...so not beleiving in UFOs and government conspiracies makes you crazy, is that it?

I did search for the terms you suggested, and was unable to find anything substansial. You wouldn't happen to have any specific links, now would you?
-Steve

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

Saturday, February 14, 2004 7:12 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

shortgeek wrote:

Quote:
a common logical flaw. An infinite number of possibilities does not imply that all things are possible.

I guess this puts the cabash on the Inifinite Improbability Drive.

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

Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:40 AM