Thales

http://space.com/businesstechnology/flying_triangle_040902.html Very interesting article. Worth a look. Most likely the US military at least in my opinion.

Not a problem Navajo, glad to be of assistance. What Wotanaz said about age is true too. Not to belittle your problem but often at that age, particularly if you are intellectually gifted, it is easy to get frustrated with your lack of a voice in the world, which seems to be trundling ever faster towards...well lets not go there. And if worse comes to worse you know you've got us guys here who will give you an objective assessment(i hope) of the way of the world. Having someone you can trust and confide in is usually the best way to deal with any problems, particulatly emotional ones. Talking about things, putting your thoughts into words can sometimes make you realise things that in retrospect seem obvious. Sometimes you just need to heard it said, so don't refrain from expressing your grief/disbelief if it helps you feel better. As for a trigger, it most likely won't be obvious, if it were you would have dealt with it long ago. My trigger was that I took onboard everyone else's problems and their opinion of me too heavily. I was quite over sensitive to what other people were doing/saying. In learning to deal with that part of my personality I have become a more well rounded and confident person. I also found that having faith in others intentions(not always presuming them to be bad) helped. Sometimes when your depressed its very easy to paint a bleak picture on other peoples take on the world also. However thats destructive as opposed to constructive. Last but not least, think global but act local. There is no point in worrying about things you can't change, and if you feel you are uneasy with something fundamental in your world, let it be your goal to place yourself in a position where you can change it.

Whats a sonde?

No really, if you study some basic general relativity it is fairly self explainitory. I'm quite happy to explain it to you here, if you could start by pointing out where I have contradicted myself?

Congratulations, no mean feat. I see you also hail from Melbourne, may I ask what University you did your work at/with.

The point which you seem to miss Mr MX is that without faith, without confidence in as yet unproven idea's, there would be no idea's to build on and to prove in the first place. I think you also misunderstood the meaning of my post, take it literally if you wish but please refrain from pushing your ultra-rationalist approach on the other free thinkers in this forum. I'm sure you are very competent in your respective field(which I take to be mathamatics) but remember what Einstein said; 'Imagination is more important than knowledge'. If you understand that concept then you may begin to understand where DreamLord and myself are coming from. It is not that we rely on or trust the comments and ideas we manifest it is merely that we think they are interesting points of discussion that deserve to be considered before they are dismissed. You on the other hand seem to hold a baseless contempt for idea's which exist independently of mathematics. Just because a concept has not yet been given rigrous mathematical proof, it does not disprove/prove its existance. Newton, for instance, had to invent an entirely new(depending on who you ask) branch of mathematics to 'prove' his theory of universal gravitation(amoung other things). However the concept of gravity existed prior to Newtons 'proof' of it. If you are to only ever do things you know to be "true" and never step outside your rational self, challenge yourself and the world around you(including the facts), then your scientific career will be one tied up in working out the semantics rather than making any new, truly revolutionary discoveries. Just a thought. No proof required.

One of the best ways to deal with depression is to stay active both mentally and physically. All of us go through stages of depression in our lives, some more severe than others. The trick is to not over think things. If you think your depressed you will get depressed more easily. However if you stay active by pursuing some form of mental exercise, either studying or writing, you will have less time to be depressed as such emotions are generally prevalant when you are inactive. Physical exercise can also make a marked improvement in your general well being, both mental and physical, as it produces endorphins which can make you feel mildly euphoric. Thus the phrase, healthy body, healthy mind. Also trying to assess which aspects of your life are particularly prone to trigger bouts of depression cannot be undervalued. If you know what it is that tends to set your depression off then you can either avoid such situations in future or formulate a series of mechanisms to deal with the situation next time it arises. Often depression is considered by many, including the sufferer, to be in the 'too hard' basket. However as a former sufferer, it is this hopelessness that is often at the seat of the problem and once you become more active you will find that things you previously saw as insurrmountable, are merely a matter of perception. Keep active and remember that no matter how bad things get, there is always people worse off than you.

Photons travel in a straight line through curved space. The illusion that they are affected by gravity is created because gravity curves the space on which they travel. It is not a result of the photons themselves having mass or gravitational attraction.

The figure I posted was of the radial distance to the kupier belt not to pluto itself. i should have specified that one. John, we shouldn't assume anything about life beyond or Solar System because we have no evidence for it taking one form or another. In terms of the composition/mass of most planets, you will hear about being detected over the next few years, almost all of them will be Jovian (gas giants) in nature. This is because the current method of detecting extra-solar planets is studying the 'wobble' these planets cause by pulling on the parent star. The definition of a planet usually dictates that it is massive enough for its gravity to pull it into a spherical form. It is a shady definition at best though, many smaller objects that revolve around the sun can indeed be considered to be planetoids(as in planet-like). Earlier this year astronomers discovered a planetoid called and named it Sebna. It was located much futher away and it thought to originated from the Oort Cloud. Another interesting fact I came to bear upon recently was that the Sun is in transit between spiral arms as its orbital speed around the center of the Galaxy is in fact faster than the rotation rate of the galaxy as a whole. What i found most interesting about this fact is that the times in which we penetrate the arms, coincide with the times of the major extinctions on earth. It is theorised that on the journey through the spiral arms some of the Oort cloud's objects are dislodged from their gravitationally stable points by passing stars, sending them towards the sun. So perhaps a 'wandering' star killed the Dinosaurs(in a roundabout way).

Wow, now thats alot of information to trudge through. Good work Martin. i'll get started on it after I finish the latest paper I am working on. Still a while off yet, trying to gain a qualative understanding of the universe is almost as difficult as a quantative one.

Here's one I came up with recently (not sure if it belongs here but there are several threads devoted to the speed of light so I thought here was as good a place as any and it does have implications for GR.). The speed of a wave through a material is usually given as the sqrt of tension/density. Given the speed of light is constant and intergalactic space has such a low density, doesn't it hold the Einstiens rubber sheet does indeed need to be placed under a much higher tension in order to keep the speed of light constant. The origin of this tension could therefore be dark energy. That said the reverse would also be true, the comparitivly high density of galactic space would yield a much lower tension and therefore a much more 'relaxed' rubber sheet which would in turn be influenced by the presence of matter to a greater extent and therefore create the illusion of dark matter. Explaining these two phenomena with exotic particles as opposed to simple geometry seems like overkill to me to say the least. Comments/suggestions welcome...

Mass and Energy can be viewed as equivilant not equal. That and one cannot selectively apply lorentz transforms (ie time and not space or vice versa). The theory of SR applies only to inertial reference frames, as in those that contain mass.

Technical Institutes usual accredit Diplomas which are like Degrees only not as comprehensive. At least that is the case in Australia.

Without time you cannot have movement as movement is change in spartial coordinates with respect to time. The postulates of special relativity apply only to inertial reference frames, which as I have said before does not apply to photons as they have no mass.

As far as most people are concerned a tunnel in space or time would constitute a wormhole. Oh and DreamLord, I couldn't agree more. Many peoples narrow mindedness will be their downfall, don't let it get you down though, it just means there is more to discover, for those of us who don't pretend to hold sway over the unfathomable amount of information that makes up the universe and everything in it.

I recieved this one via e-mail the other day; Here are the top nine comments made by NBC sports commentators so far during the Summer Olympics that they would like to take back: 1. Weightlifting commentator: "This is Gregoriava from Bulgaria. I saw her snatch this morning during her warm up and it was amazing." 2. Dressage commentator: "This is really a lovely horse and I speak from personal experience since I once mounted her mother." 3. Paul Hamm, Gymnast: "I owe a lot to my parents, especially my mother and father." 4. Boxing Analyst: "Sure there have been injuries, and even some deaths in boxing, but none of them really that serious." 5. Softball announcer: "If history repeats itself, I should think we can expect the same thing again." 6. Basketball analyst: "He dribbles a lot and the opposition doesn't like it. In fact you can see it all over their faces." 7. At the rowing medal ceremony: "Ah, isn't that nice, the wife of the IOC president is hugging the cox of the British crew." 8. Soccer commentator: "Julian Dicks is everywhere. It's like they've got eleven Dicks on the field." 9. Tennis commentator: "One of the reasons Andy is playing so well is that, before the final round, his wife takes out his balls and kisses them... Oh my God, what have I just said?"

Time is relative, people. There is no such thing as universally simultaneous events so this talk of past/present/future remains in the realm of the abstract. Can I ask a question politely? How many of you here have actually studied relativity at a university/college level? Judging by the responses, not many. I think in the interest of this site remaining a valid scienctific forum, please outline when you are stating your opinion and when you are stating accepted 'facts'. All too often we have people proffessing violations of relativity or new takes on space-time as though they are valid scienctific facts as opposed to errorneous(but interesting no less) opinions. I have no problem with people expressing their opinions, as long as they state it, as there are a few on this site who may read what your saying and believe you. Not exactly standing the youngins in good stead for their future education. Just an idea...

There has been much talk of late of a Russian mathematician(Dr. Perelman) 'proving' the Poincare conjecture. For those of you who don't know it and are curious check google, as it is a one of the biggest problem in maths, that has been round for 100 years or so, and will take much too long to explain in detail here. For those of you who are familiar with it and the supposed proof adopted using Ricci flow and 'snipping' the singularities, does it appear to you to be more of a quick fix approach than a rigorous mathematical proof. For instance at what point does one decide where to clip the singularities? Is it an arbitrarily defined point? Isn't the inclusion of discluding regions of a 3-mainfold contrary to the principles of topology. For instance the homotopy of a dumbell (used in the popular proof) is distinctly different from the two 3-spheres created from 'snipping' the singularities generated by Ricci-flow out of the equation. As I am not a mathematician myself, proving my skepticism would probably take longer than it is worth, but it is my prediction that the conjecture remains unproven, at least via first principles. The method outlined is an approximation.

Start with a finite amount of matter/energy. Actuate all possible combinations(thermodynamics). Final result? There is an end, to this cycle of the universe anyway.

Math exists everywhere in nature. The rules of physics/biology/chemisty are based on mathematics. It is a property of the universe. Sure we use man made symbols to define its characteristics but this is no different from using words to describe objects, which definately exist in nature. Take a single entity, add another identical entity and you have twice as many entities as you start with. It is a concept that would universal, to any conscious creature throughout the universe and thus, while described by man made absrtactions, is fundamentally the same no matter where you are in the universe. Maths was around before this planet spawned human consciousness and it will be around long after we are gone. So while the nature and direction of mathematics is guided by abstract thought, the processes that govern it are fundamental to the universe and therefore NOT man-made.

No, I was talking hypothetically.

Recently I was watching a debate on TV about the pro's and cons of screening embryos for genetic defects. The debate then pointed out that certain places in the world are starting to use the process for so called 'family balancing' where the sex of the child is selected so they can have a boy if they have five girls or vice versa. Do you see the screening of embryos as wrong or merely as a by-product of consciousness evolving? For instance assuming aliens are much more scientifically advanced than we, they would have already mastered the art of genetic selection and have probably exploited it for the benefit of their race. Why shouldn'y we do the same. Sure consciousness causes us to think about the ethics of the situation, but doesn't the rationalist in all of us want to grab this bull by the horns and speed up the 'natural' process of evolution? I wonder if their is a gene for intellect, for instance? If so why would we 'voluntarily' have stupid children...

The answer is yes, we will undoubtably die off. Even if we live till the end of the universe, I don't see us living through it (the end that is).

No, you are obviously dillusional. Firstly I didn't say that and secondly your entire premise, of their being life on mars, is based entirely pn a bunch of snap shots that vaguely(not even in most cases) resemble creatures or objects on earth. I do not wish to argue with you though, as I think it is quite apparent to all on this site who is the fool here. I would ask on behalf of those on this site who believe in science for you to leave and not return if I did not find your ignorance of scienctific method so amusing.

Special relativity is more than a fanciful theorem. Its the way of the world we live in. First learn it inside out and then question it. I know your probably not still around SockCymbol but it has to do with length contraction and time dialation of which, without reading the whole thread, an explaination has been attempted (i would hope). People have been trying to find violations of relativity since Einstien thought it up. The fact that not one of those supposed violations has stood the test of time when the theory itself still stand says alot for it validity. The Don: As you accelerate something close to light it gets heavier and heavier and it takes more energy to accelerate it. It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate and object with mass to the speed of light.