|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:46 am
Endrael But remember that the speed of light is also relative, though yeh, I agree. It should be interesting to see if string theory gains more traction and is able to predict and explain this light-faster-than-light phenomena. I think that would be a big step in both legitimising string theory and opening up a lot of lines for further research. Indeed. Or not even string theory. Maybe string theory is all wrong and we'll come up with some new crazy theory. lol Now that would be cool. That's what I'm kinda looking forward to happening. 3nodding lol it's reminds me of what my physics prof told us on the first day of class. "Everything you've learned so far is wrong. And what I'm going to teach you this year will one day also be proven wrong." xd Ah well. that's physics for you.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 3:21 pm
AstronomyGirl Endrael But remember that the speed of light is also relative, though yeh, I agree. It should be interesting to see if string theory gains more traction and is able to predict and explain this light-faster-than-light phenomena. I think that would be a big step in both legitimising string theory and opening up a lot of lines for further research. Indeed. Or not even string theory. Maybe string theory is all wrong and we'll come up with some new crazy theory. lol Now that would be cool. That's what I'm kinda looking forward to happening. 3nodding That would indeed be cool, but from what I've read about string theory so far (Brian Greene's books are still at the top of the list for that, imo), it's the best of the bunch as far as the attempts to reconcile Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics. As with any theory, it's likely to be replaced as our understanding of the universe deepens. Hell, people used to think the heavens were seven crystal spheres eek AstronomyGirl lol it's reminds me of what my physics prof told us on the first day of class. "Everything you've learned so far is wrong. And what I'm going to teach you this year will one day also be proven wrong." xd Ah well. that's physics for you. So very true. Though not necessarily wrong, unless it's blatantly out of synch with the reality of things, like the crystal spheres belief, or everything being made up of only earth, air, fire, and water. Of course, every theory is really quite dependant on the observational capabilities of the time. Until people started pointing semi-decent telescopes at the sky, thinking the cosmos was nested spheres made sense, and likewise for the four elements idea, since that couldn't properly be debunked until we could look at things on a very small scale. Hell, even zero-point physics wasn't solidly called into question until the advent of quantum mechanics, and until recently, no effective replacement for it had been made. Although in retrospect, one would think the illogic of having infinite reducability would in itself be quite absurd enough to spark a search for a better explanation. After all, if one gets infinity as an answer to an equation, that's taken to mean something about the equation is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 1:01 pm
Now if you want a real mind trip, this is definitely a must read. Having a good familiarity with mysticism also helps. The Overlap of Physics and Consciousness"If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'. As attention expands its focus to include more and more of the margin or 'fringe' of consciousness, awareness becomes increasingly diffuse and undifferentiated. This is identical to what happens when, moving in the opposite direction, the scope of attention is progressively concentrated toward an innermost limit or 'center', which must ultimately be recognized as 'empty' - ie, also undifferentiated, or 'without object'. The same mental state, which occurs at both extremes, is a highly significant state in meditation practice, repeatedly singled out for special consideration by mystics in various traditions. As it turns out, string theory may conceive of the structure of physical reality in a remarkably similar way."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 8:29 am
Quote: mrgreen That would indeed be cool, but from what I've read about string theory so far (Brian Greene's books are still at the top of the list for that, imo), it's the best of the bunch as far as the attempts to reconcile Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics. As with any theory, it's likely to be replaced as our understanding of the universe deepens. Hell, people used to think the heavens were seven crystal spheres eek ooo I have one of Brian Greene's book... haven't had a chance to read it yet though... sweatdrop I've been meaning to get to it. lol yea string theory is the most plausable theory right now, but there is always a chance for something else. Quote: rofl So very true. Though not necessarily wrong, unless it's blatantly out of synch with the reality of things, like the crystal spheres belief, or everything being made up of only earth, air, fire, and water. lol yea, I don't think he really meant what he learned was ALL wrong, but it is still rather funny for a prof to tell you first thing on the frist day of class. blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 3:48 pm
AstronomyGirl ooo I have one of Brian Greene's book... haven't had a chance to read it yet though... sweatdrop I've been meaning to get to it. lol yea string theory is the most plausable theory right now, but there is always a chance for something else. His first book ( The Elegant Universe) is much more a head trip than his second ( The Fabric of the Cosmos, which I've only managed to read half of, because it doesn't hold my attention like the first sweatdrop ). Both are very well written and understandable, and I definitely recommend getting around to reading them wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 4:58 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 5:20 pm
Earth's core really is solid."For the first time, the solid inner core of the Earth has been directly detected and its existence confirmed, seismologists have reported."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:12 pm
Endrael AstronomyGirl ooo I have one of Brian Greene's book... haven't had a chance to read it yet though... sweatdrop I've been meaning to get to it. lol yea string theory is the most plausable theory right now, but there is always a chance for something else. His first book ( The Elegant Universe) is much more a head trip than his second ( The Fabric of the Cosmos, which I've only managed to read half of, because it doesn't hold my attention like the first sweatdrop ). Both are very well written and understandable, and I definitely recommend getting around to reading them wink lol yea I definatly plan to read it... eventually. xp blaugh I think I have The Fabic of the Cosmos... though I can't remember forsure. I haven't looked at my book shelf if a while. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:16 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 pm
Endrael Earth's core really is solid."For the first time, the solid inner core of the Earth has been directly detected and its existence confirmed, seismologists have reported." This is cool! ^_^ In some of my astronomy and earth science courses we've learned about this, like what the inside of the earth is like, and how they know it (b/c of siesmic waves). So this is really cool to hear that they have other solid evidence that what they always thought was right. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 11:12 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 11:05 am
Endrael AstronomyGirl hum... very interesting. I hope more people are able to do more research in this. I'd love to see if making a person invisable would be possible. 3nodding And just imagine how happy all the Star Trek fans will be when this news permeates the social strata rofl "I told you cloaking devices are possible!" But on the other hand, I also read an analyses of the feasibility of a cloaking device, like an invisibility cloak. The main problem would be the heat it would put off, assuming there's electronics running the whole thing. So even if the object were invisible while the device was on, all you'd have to do is pull out a pair of thermal goggles and shazam, you've found your invisible whatever. And if the object's moving? Not going to happen with current technology, and likely won't be realistically feasible for at least another 10-20 years. Yea I was thinking about the other radiation given off. It seems like it would only be able to make the object invisible in a small range of wavelenghts at at time, so like you said you may be invisible in visible light, but still visible in IR, which we percieve as heat. Oh, I didn't see that part about not working if something is moving. Yea, I guess that would be tricky to do. Well, whatever breakthoughts they make with this it will be interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 7:20 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:33 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:16 pm
Endrael While this is all fine and dandy, what real incentive is there in contracting through NASA? Space Ship One was entirely privately funded, and there's currently the follow-up project (I forget what it's called) to build a viable commercial craft that can reach orbit without complication. Considering the speed with which the X-Prize was won, why should we believe that the current reach-orbit project won't meet deadline? Especially considering the track record of government projects dragging out for at least two or three years longer than proposed confused That's not something the ISS can afford to have happen, and if the last decade is any indication, the ISS is going to be relying less and less on NASA to function. indeed. It seems NASA is really slacking which is really benifiting these private companies, giving them a chance to be able to pick up NASA's slack. RIght now, to me it seems that once NASA finishes what it says it will, and retires the shuttle, it will then probably just ... disband (for lack of a better word) and it will all be private companies then. It will be interesting to see if these private companies can actually make rockets and such that can get into earth orbit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
