Messenger

Well, the way i see it, if time were to some how stop, then everything would freeze. right? i mean Velocity = Distance / Time. if time were to be 0 or just gone altogether then you get an undefinable or non-existent Velocity. The math seems to say that time is necessary for there to be any kind of motion. plus, back when people didn't think in 4 dimensions it doesn't mean that there really were only 3 dimensions. the same way people thought atoms were tiny indestructible balls. that didn't make them tiny indestructible balls, we just thought they were.

I did a little bit of hunting around for that graph and i found what what seems to be a decent source (But hey, what do i know, I'm just a 17 year old student who skipped earth science :3 ) http://www.exo.net/~pauld/workshops/globalclimate/atmospherecarbondioxide.htm If you look at the second graph you'll see the CO2 levels and temperature from now all the way back to a really long time ago. (Not sure what BP stands for :/ ) Clearly the CO2 and Temp. do basically the same exact thing. Right up until about a few years ago that is. It looks pretty clear to me that just before the current time temp. starts to increase and then CO2 follows suite, but then a funny thing happens and CO2 dips back down briefly while temp. continues to rise. THEN CO2 starts to shoot straight up, and temp stays pretty constant. The max temp. on this graph doesn't even reach any of the other peaks on the graph and it most certainly doesn't exceed them. I'll admit, what the temp may be doing isn't "Normal" per say according to this graph, but we aren't all going to die. if we WERE then it would have happened already. 4 times. Now, I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that life was able to continue. (If you'll excuse my sarcasm) Also, i live in Maryland and I'd just like to say that we got snow a week into spring. Yeah.... Global warming... Now, I'm not saying that the CO2 isn't contributing to the unusual temp. changes in some way, eventually everything effects everything else. I mean that's obvious. But i really dont think you can say 100% that CO2 (Or really any other Greenhouse gas) is causing "Global Warming" In my other post i mentioned the Solar cycles and how they might be a more realistic cause and SMF said that the sun was constant but according to This article On Wikipedia (Yes, i realize Wiki isn't exactly the best source out there) the sun is pretty dynamic, just like our own environment. Here is the more recent solar cycles and here is another chart of atmospheric CO2. If you look at this article you'll see both of the above graphs. I just want to direct your attention to the caption for the Atmospheric CO2 graph on the right hand side of the page which reads: "Changes in carbon-14 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere, which serves as a long term proxy of solar activity. Note the present day is on the left-hand side of this figure." I would think that supports what i was saying about the solar cycles, to a point at least. I'm inclined to think that CO2 levels duplicate the Solar cycles because the CO2 also duplicates the temperature and the temperature is a result from the sun. But, this is just my opinion/interpretation and i don't have anything to back it up as of yet. If you dissagree then by all means, post counter arguments with sources Lastly, the bit about the Ocean currents. If you look at this link concerning climate change myths it says that i was wrong about there being some sort of "ice age" and that if the current was effected it would only slow, not stop completely. if you read the 6th paragraph it says: "Few scientists think there will be a rapid shutdown of circulation. Most ocean models predict no more than a slowdown, probably towards the end of the century. This could slow or even reverse some of the warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, which might even be welcome in an overheated Europe, but the continent is not likely to get colder than it is at present." I love the part where it says: "...or even reverse some of the warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases..." So i was right in a sense that it would help "Reverse" the climate change. I think that was everything, if not someone let me know Oh, and to Marat: I had heard rumors about the 'Climategate' scandal, something about emails being leaked that data had been skewed and falsified to add hype to the Global Warming movement, but i had forgotten about that. Good job for being on the ball lol

Several of you have referenced Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" documentary but i think it would be prudent to point out that while his data was Technically accurate, his interpretation was skewed to support his claims. The biggest example of this is his famous graph of CO2 levels and temperature. Like i said, the graph is scientificaly correct, theres no falce data, and there is definatly a correlation between Temperature and CO2, but not for the reasons Al Gore would like you to think. If you actually look at the Data, you'd notice that the rising and falling of CO2 actually happens 800-1000 years AFTER the rise or fall in temperature. Unfortunately for those of you who would like to believe that CO2 is the problem its simply not true. The reason for the correlation between CO2 and Temperature is that as the oceans heat up they release CO2 that had previously been dissolved in the oceans. High CO2 levels are caused by high temperature, not the other way around. Another flaw in Al Gores argument is the part of his graph that shows when CO2 dramatically rises during the current time period. this rise in CO2 exists, its a fact, he's right there, but does anyone find it interesting that he doesnt show how temperature is following the rise of CO2? If the temperature DID follow what CO2 was doing (In this case rising to nearly the highest peak on Gore's graph) then we would be dead and temperatures would have increased somewhere around 100%-175% of what they were before the rise in CO2. what they have ACTUALLY done is rise anywhere from 5-10 degrees. that's not a lot, not even close to where they should be if Gore is correct, so i think its safe to say he isn't correct. But lets forget all that for a minute. lets just say that it really is happening and everything the Global warming/climate change scientists say is 100% correct. THAT would mean that all of the icecaps and glaciers would melt, and less sunlight would be reflected away from earth and temperature would increase exponentially. BUT that's just not true, and the reason that temperatures would re-balance themselves comes from the very people who would like you to think that it will never be fixed if we humans don't step in. F all of that fresh water from the melting glaciers enters the oceans then it will stop ocean currents such as the gulf stream and the North Atlantic Drift due to a decrease in the ratio of salt water to water. in turn that should lower temperatures in Europe to the point that Europe will experience an ice age. now first of all that sounds ridiculous, but lets say its true. if Europe DID go into an ice age due to Global Warming wouldn't that mean theres LOST of ice where Europe was? and wouldn't THAT mean that more sunlight would be reflected away from earth and temperatures would drop? yeah, its almost like nature is fixing itself. But that's not important to politicians, they would rather gloss over that little tidbit because they want people to vote for them. So it would seem that CO2 is clearly not the problem. The thing is, temperatures ARE increasing. Why? Well what makes the Earth warm in the first place? Thats right, the sun. The sun goes through phases, just like everything in nature does, and it just so happens that those phases of high and low temperatures correlate quite well with earth's temperatures. At the risk of making the same mistake that Gore made, im going to say that the sun is to blame. Also, the sun is beginning to become a red dwarf, which means its getting BIGGER and HOTTER. and That means higher temperatures here on earth. so there you go, problem solved? oh, and also, if this is indeed the case the only way to fix it would be to move the earth back into the habitable zone (Which is moving farther away out toward Pluto since the sun is expanding) and we can even do that. theoreticaly we could re-direct commets or asteroids to slingshot around the earth, moving the earth away from the sun. or we could just move to mars or something. [i apologize if i repeated anything that someone may have already said, i did not read every post, and some of them i just skimmed. Again, i apologize if i repeated anything, and if anyone would like me to get specific scourses i would gladly find them, but im out of time at the moment.]

no, i would think it isn't. just because space happens to be 3D doesn't mean you have to use all 3 Dimensions. you could still have a linear line. What I'm saying is that nothing would be able to move relative to eather because movement requires 4 dimensions but the eather only has 3. im sorry if i worded it confusingly. If something were to move "With respect to eather" it would require a dimension that simply doesn't exist in that context, which is different that having extra "Unused" dimensions which is basically what you were saying regarding the photon's path.

Maybe he,s having difficulty answering your question because its not really possible to answer. According to serudr the eather is 3 dimensional, and the world we are in is 4 dimensional. i would think, but may be wrong of course, that the eather has length, width, and height. but then our environment has length, width, and height as it moves through time, hence the 4th dimension. but is this is true then either time does not exist in eather or that eather is totally separate from time. If something is moving it needs speed, but that requires time. (Speed = Distance / time) SO, assuming eather is real and is 3 dimensional, we are neither stationary or moving with respect to the eather. Right?

I'm actually slightly surprised that no one has asked why this "Aether" only effects light. We know that Things with charge can be effected by Magnetic and Electrical fields and we also think that things with mass are effected by some sort of gravitational field or posibly something like the Higgs Boson, but what about light? Does this Aether effect light in similar ways? And if so, What aspect of light is it acting on. It's unlikely that it effects it based on electrical or magnetic charge, otherwise it would also effect ANYTHING with charge, right? Of course, I believe electrons and things like alpha decay act as both particles and transverse waves so could this Aether be the reason? So i guess what I'm asking is: WHY does Aether effect light, if it exists, and in what way would it do so?

yeah, the prism thing was the lesser of the two ideas lol. it did occur to me today that light attenuates (Is that the correct word for it? im not sure, its not one im super familiar with.) the farther it travels regardless of the medium. even in a vacuum that happens, which definatly makes things harder. I thought the other one might be better though, but i guess the light would still fade after some amount of time. i clearly dont know as much as you guys and im not even sure there is a difference between a substance "Lasing" and light going through a prism. they sound different but then again i dont have a phd in physics so i could be totaly wrong.

so i stumbled across this site and this thread on accident while i was researching about Lasers lol, this looks like a great community ok, so on to the original question. I had a similar thought, that it would be interesting to somehow contain a photon/photons and i came up with several ideas, 100% reflective mirrors and the fibre optic loop were among them among them but not practical as you all pointed out. then i thought of a "Lazing Substance". you might be able to use one of those to at least contain the photons energy in a realistic way. i may be wrong, but i believe a Lazing substance's electrons will absorb photons, increase in their orbit, then drop back down and release the photon. but at the same time if an electron that is already in a high orbit absorbs an electron it will emit both. so if you ad a constant light source and you cover most of the substance in some sort of mirror you could gather enough photons in the Lazing Substance that the electrons are almost all in an elevated orbit and you could contain light. actually some lazer pointers work on the same principle. if you close the hole that the beam comes out of with a mirrored surface you would basically be containing the light. Another interesting idea i thought of was using prisms and trapping it inside a prism. as you may or not know, when light goes from a high to a low index of refraction it will refract and "Bend" slightly. at the same time if the angle is correct it will reflect off of the boundry if the angle is correct and you will have total internal reflection. if you take these two ideas and put them together you could trap light in a glass prism. if you take something with a high index of refraction, such as Cubic zirconia, and you shine a light through it into something of a lower index of refraction, like glass, then you can create a critical angle in the glass. the only way the critical angle works is if light goes from a high to a low index of refraction so it would be vital that there is no space between the Cubic zirconia and glass. Now, once you have the critical angle you might be able to have the light enter another shape made of glass with nothing between it and the original and you would effectively have a light source "Originating" inside the glass. This was the tricky part that had me stumped for a long time. once you have the light inside the glass all you would need is some glass that was shaped so that the light would make only internal reflections with its edges and then your done. you would have a chunk of glass that, theoretically, you could pick up and do whatever with and there would be light whipping around inside it indefinitely. good luck trying to get it out though lol. i guess you could cut it or something? the only flaw i cant counter in this experiment is that as light travels a distance it loses amplitude and i would imagine that it would eventualy have an amplitude of zero, in which case its gone? i think? im not sure if that would violate the law o conservation of energy or if it doesn't happen in a vacuum but im sure its an issue. anyway, both of these two things occurred to me in the span on about 30 hours and I'm 17 if anyone cares. Id love to hear from you guys, you seem to be exceptionally bright and i need a second or third opinion of these two things, so have at it