koti

Wow, this is realy clever. I wonder if there would be a way to convert LIGO for this experiment.

Watched 2 episodes, a pretty good series. Not as awesome as "Stranger Things" but it holds up well: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475784/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

No worries, just a friendly hint. I do wonder though, where is your limit of presumption. Your thinking on relativity is flawed. No perhaps here. If you can't take it from a PhD in physics who builds atomic clocks you could perhaps use a calculator and 3rd grade math will tell you that you are wrong.

EvanF, perhaps you should have taken the time to look at the profile of this particular person before stating the above?

Here's something that will be useful to see the scales that Strange is talking about: http://htwins.net/scale2/ The "human martians" will they wish to come back to earth from mars in Elon Musks spaceship will not experience significant time dilation effects. Thats because Elon Musk's space ship will not be traveling fast enough for the relativistic effects to be observable and secondly even if it was fast enough, Mars is too close to earth, only a few light minutes away. LoL

Yes. Its SciFi.

I've read it. I don't see where he disagrees with me. It's hypothetical talk about "what if a time machine was built"

I agree. I just prefer to call this relativistic effect time dilation and not "time travel" I think that we have to firmly distinguish between time dilation which is a scientific fact and the moronic mumbo jumbo contained in the video posted by OpenMind.

Tim88...don't you mean that due to time dilation effect someone traveling in a spaceship will end up being younger than his twin brother on earth ? This concept would most definitely not enable you to "travel" to the 28th century in a sense that OpenMind's video suggests. I think I saw a movie once where this rule was used. This is not science OpenMind, its SciFi.

No. It's a concept.

I am familar with some far off ideas concerning negative energy like wormhole creation or fasther than light travel by manipulating spacetime curvature in front and back of a theoretical spaceship (all these are more or less scifi too) but I've never heard of negative energy being used with the concept of anti-gravity in a serious scientific discussion by physisists. I may be wrong though, maybe some of the more knowlegable members (physisists) can help you out on this one. If you watched the video, you now know that gravity is actualy spacetime curvature - the more mass, the more curved space-time is. As for anti-gravity I'd use this analogy... We have heat but can we have "anti-heat" ? We have cold but we cannot refer to cold (lack of heat) as "anti-heat" - theres no such thing as "anti-heat" There is just heat or there is less heat and thats it.

Negative energy is an idea used in quantum mechanics specificaly quantum field theory to explain how fields behave. Science fiction writers picked up the concept of negative energy and are using it for science fiction purposes like anti gravity. Heres a video that will help you to get a firmer grip on gravity:

OpenMind...great that you are aking questions and welcome to the forum. I've been here only a month and a half and I've already learned a lot. Atmospheric (air) pressure on earth is 1 Bar at sea level. If you take a dive 2m into water you will feel the pressure of about 2 Bar due to the 2m of water above you pushing onto you. Atmospheric pressure is just the density of the air that you are breathing and it's present exactly becasue of the same principle as the water analogy I gave you...a column of air above you is creating this pressure. If you climb a high mountain the air pressure will be much lower there...you can feel that it's harder to breathe because you have to inhale more air into your lungs to get the same amount of oxygen into your lungs as you would being at sea level. The air at higher altitudes is thinner, less dense - it has a lower atmospheric pressure. Our moon has no atmosphere and has gravity, that should give you a hint. Gravity is a little more complex but in lay mens terms - if you increase the mass, the more gravity you will get - moon has a lower mass than the earth so it has much less gravity. If you putt pressure on mass and crunch it into a smaller space you also get more gravity (this is how black holes are born) When there is any mass there has to be gravity. When there is lots of mass there is lot's of gravity. No mass = no gravity.

I hope this is not inappropriate, I came across this short video a few months ago and I find it interesting. I think it explains Trump's popularity phenomenon very well. https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=N7naGOTv6ks

Strange, I have not seen that Voynich thread before. I searched for it now, found it and spent 10 minutes going through it. Surely, I will not get my 10 minutes back - can you propose some compromise how we can settle this?

It's the other way around. Atmospheric pressure is present because of gravity (and also density of the gasses in air)Removal of gravity would mean lack of atmospheric pressure (on earth) Removal of atmospheric pressure would not give you anti gravity (whatever anti gravity might mean) You can create a vacum (lack of atmospheric pressure) on earth and it does not affect gravity. There is no atmospheric pressure on the moon and undoubtedly there is gravity on the moon.

I've listened to the first 3 minutes only. He states that every 300 stories they install an anti gravity platform to remove pressure from the weight of a very tall building thus making it possible to build very tall buildings. It is extraordinary that he travelled to the 28th century and has zero knowledge about how things work there. This is as high as it gets on my BS scale. My suggestion, type in Richard Feynman into youtube and listen to him talk instead of feeding youreself this crap.

Yep. I'm guilty too.

Infrared or near infrared light should pickup the iron in the bloodstream and make the vein visible. We had this topic come up in our flashlight forum some years ago. Let me know who wants a custom flashlight built for this purpose

What you described seems to be a feature of character or maybe a set of features which lead to this behaviour. I'm no expert but what you described doesn't seem like a condition or disorder. I agree that many people on the internet behave this way but I wouldn't consider this to be a clinical disorder. It seems that you expect extraordinary levels of coherence from your partners in discussion and I'm afraid this expectation is futile in majority of cases

Semantics again...it is crucial to define "animal" before trying to answer the OP question. People in general have a vastly different idea of the meaning of the word "animal" If we look at animals from the evolutionary point of view the answer is obvious and personaly I think there is no other, rational point of view possible.