TJ McCaustland

Exactly the point of the dots on a balloon demonstration.

Thermodynamics really is a pain in the back isn't it?

Exactly the point of that philosophical rambling, my dear StringJunky.

True sorry. I don't mean any mockery at all. I recognize my sassy attitude its just I hate it when people propose using highly cost inefficient methods of producing energy when you have the wondrous nuclear power sitting around. I'll edit my post, and change my attitude. There's a sass free non bogus method that could work, it would just pose the question: How many of those big bucks you willing to fork over?

It is sad indeed, but what are we after all? A few billion cells that are made of simple atoms, carbon, iron, and other small, insignificant elements. We have an instinct to survive, to reproduce, and to better ourselves and those who affect us directly, most couldn't care that a man in Africa is dying, because it does not directly affect them. We are a selfish race, but at the same time we are the most caring and inquisitive people we know, it is not so much the bad qualities of others that people focus on, rather the good qualities that benefit our race so much, because we value them, and that valuing of others is exactly what has kept us alive so long, and if we can all learn to value and respect each other for their various qualities, I daresay that we can overcome this crisis and all others that beset our race, because with 7 billion minds, that's 7 billion thoughts at once, and each one of those thoughts can build upon another. The point of life after all, is to do as much as we can for the next life, not heaven, but the next human life, to better it, and to give it the best chance for survival possible, and to enrich ourselves as much as we can, this is where the greed of humanity stems from, and we must find a way to curb it. If we can after all, curb it, it is unbeknownst to us what benefits may indeed come of it, and what ails will come from it. But we must try.

So don't make it work because then every physicist in the world would hate you, including me because then I have to study a whole new set of laws and models to actually think rationally or do any equations at all. Not that I'm a physicist..... YET Oh yeah sorry fiveworlds...... the definition of perpetual motion is..... Something that can keep moving forever without any outside force acting upon it.

Now on tapping the sun's energy. Might I propose a method? How bout using all those free neutrons for something? Oh I don't know..... Something like using a neutron capture method to produce radioisotopes that we can use in mass numbers in RTG's...... and set up a nuclear powered civilization..... Or you could go for a more practical but less cool approach of using that big ball of fusion to boil water and beam electricity back via microwave recievers, or use another energy conversion method or another transportation method..... Really, pretty much anything you think of that is practical will work, if you can get funding, Now I'd like to suggest a different approach to solving the energy crisis but that doesn't belong here. (P.S. the two methods suggested here are bogus of course and I only put them there for kicks, Also no mockery intended, Seriously) I forgot to look at Mike's final post, that idea, though preposterous it COULD work it would just be OBSCENELY expensive and probably impractical........ but it would work......

OK Before you jump to any conclusions think, How would this affect you? Because without yourself in consideration how can you see the common person's view on this?

Is it just me or does AI have both good and bad consequences for humanity? before we take action we must consider and weigh the benefits with the risks.

I am no professional physicist but I would like to point out that perpetual motion, even if it was possible, would be useless because the moment you took force (or work from it if we want to get technical) it would lose that force and would, depending on conditions either A: stop or B: slow down significantly, and then you would have built a force battery basically, which would be useful, but sadly impractical...... It was once a dream of mine too to invent an engine that ran off perpetual motion.... then I realized it's impracticality.

Oh dang, Um...... a lot of stuff would go wrong REALLY fast, for example you know that force called friction? Yeah that wouldn't really work because the repelling of the electrons between your foot for example when you try to walk, and the concrete would be non existent as the electrons though they act they cannot react so your atoms would mix with that of the concrete which would cause.... problems.... to say the least......

Hey man, Haven't seen you around for ages, and yeah the way computers work is very frustrating. (To keep it on subject )

Dangit, You're right.

True I cannot dodge that, but it would be practically declaring it illegal as with "suing the pants off them" to quote Harold, it might as well be because then there would be no way to obtain fuel or vehicles if all carbon emitting entities and related companies are terminated immediately. I fully support the termination of the use of petrochemicals and carbon emitting companies, I believe they are incredibly inefficient and generally a waste of energy but we must rid ourselves of them gradually, as rapid change would only compound the problem, as people would seek transportation any way they could, using both the now practically illegal gasoline or whats left of it, or other, more carbon emissive fuels such as coal without air scrubbers on antiquidated trains and other methods of travel until the development of hydrogen burning cars and the refinement of existing electric cars, as well as a creation of new ways to produce carbon free electricity. with no oil products all of a sudden there would be major problems, so we need to do this slowly and carefully.

One problem, the aftermath. What would people use then for transportation over long distances if greenhouse gas emissions are declared illegal as you seem to want them to be? Also how would the government react to this near destruction of a profitable and thriving automobile and oil industry when the country needs an economic break? and how exactly would you make this a worldwide law? You certainly seem to lack the resources to pull this one off......

Oh wow *facepalm* Let me go ahead and apologize for my idiocy..... By the way grab the New York times would you........

OK I've been skeptic about sharing this idea because as far fetched as it is I think I might, Just MIGHT, be on to something if this hasn't already been proposed/discovered, and therefore I claim all credit to this idea if it is original, if not then I need someone to slap me with a newspaper and tell me to do my science homework. So, I was thinking one day and I thought "Hmm.... if there is a point where the gravitational pull of a black hole is exactly equivalent to the speed of light (Event Horizon), would there then be photons orbiting the black hole for eternity and never falling past that point? Well I thought this out and if I'm correct photons are too tiny for tidal forces to have much affect if any on them, so therefore there could be an area just before you reach the event horizon of a black hole where photons are orbiting in the perfect position where they never escape or succumb to the gravity of the black hole. I call this speculative region the photohover region, now what would happen if nonillions (or more) of photons were orbiting a black hole perfectly and never changing their orbit? Heat, that would affect the matter spiraling into the black hole, helping the already stupidly powerful frictional forces in heating up matter thats being pulled into the black hole. And since the photons would be orbiting the black hole perfectly and their orbits would never change and they would never escape you wouldn't be able to see these photons in action, as no photons equals no light. Now when it comes to mathematics..... well.... uh... still stuck on trig and early calc..... so can't really propose any equations, but I will be able to hopefully back up this idea with some good mathematics in the near future if it passes the great minds on Science Forums. Anyways thanks for taking time to read my word salad, and if I need it grab that newspaper! Sincerely, TJ McCaustland

I would first like to point out that this design would be horrendously ineffective because you would have to expend masses of energy in the first place to create significant pressure in a jet like turbine in order to actually create thrust through the expansion of a gas that is already moving, because much like a rocket no pressure equals no thrust, so you would have made a huge, expensive plasma-barbecue. This is a similar idea to one I had called plasma wings, which too would be very, very ineffective. I would also like to point out that the several thousand-year old technology thing would be very, very untrue because of the aforementioned no pressure equals no thrust, as well as the fact that the materials to build this would be beyond our grasp even today. Good Idea, come back with a better design and we will see.

Dark matter and energy make up 95% of the universe’s total mass, therefore would it not be far fetched to say that dark matter and energy are higher dimensional matter and energy that has such effect on lower dimensions as attracting and repelling regular matter? Well let’s look at what we know, we know that dark energy repels matter, and we attribute to that the chief factor for matter and energy expanding with the universe along with the remaining inertial force of the big bang (expansion of space with large equally distributed kinetic force along with other forces). We also know that dark energy attracts matter and we can attribute to that an effect on the condensing of gases to form stars, as dark matter/matter ratio is 1/1. We also know that dark matter has an effect on space by “bending” it much as matter does. Now we must ask what implications would this have on mankind if we were able to control such matter, the effects would make Dr. Harold Whites IXS Enterprise project on warp technology seem like child’s play. We would then be able to create stable wormholes by creating “dark” singularities that rotate around each other with a stable barycenter, allowing us to travel from one side of the universe to the other incredibly easily. It would possibly allow us to also take some of that dark energy and convert it into useful substances, and electricity, a limitless supply of both. Now back to the actual “theory” If we were to cause several significantly dense objects to merge to the point where it cannot exist in the 3rd dimension would that object then become higher matter? Singularities being the obvious choice. Theoretically it Should work in this way, as an object can only be so dense without theoretically causing another big bang (expansion). I will not attempt the mathematics here because I am still studying for this and I don’t want to present a bogus equation, but can we cause the above to happen with discoveries allowing us to control higher dimensional matter, and are dark matter and energy higher matter? Answer below, and present your thoughts in a professional matter, not a glorified flame war.

Dimensionless meaning without a set number of dimensions

Hello TJ here again, and I would like to ask the question of would it be possible to attract two significantly large objects such as stars together using quantum or "dark" masses as a way of redirecting objects in space that pose a threat to the populace of earth without sending anything into space?

What the article states is quite true how GR agrees with reality, but I saw another topic in specs that asked the same question in a much more convoluted way, it's just that I had a question and you answered it, so thanks.

Hello everyone, TJ here after a long vacation of study and speculation. I came here to ask a simple yet deceivingly complex question, Does general relativity Really agree with reality? Well before everybody picks sides or starts stating that Einstein was a brilliant man far above my level in learning which he was, I will present a few of my findings here. 1. In reality mass does affect the universe, but why then should mass effect the "fabric" of space when the universe is actually a dimensionless multiverse? Is that just our way of thinking of it or is the theory flawed at some specific point or is the entire universe actually limited? 2. In equation he accounts for the cosmological principal, but does he really account for the seemingly limitless, dimensionless multverse we live in? or does he forget that. I ask that here you keep the discussion in a professional calm manner and not start a flame war, and that you please do not criticize these questions unless they are completely wrong and if so show me where to correct them, after all science started with the question "why?"