Calabi-Yau

In order to perfectly simulate gravity, all of the body's particles must be under acceleration towards the desired floor surface, other wise some parts would still be wieghtless, and you would feel it. Thus something like the rotation of the station would be better than magnets, as they would simply hold one down, likelt rather uncomfortably. And kill all of NASA's snazy computers they won't share with us!

.

 

I'm sorry Skeptic, but quantum teleportation is just a fancy name for what is in essence is a fax machine. It doesn't really send an atom from A to B.

 

Sure, that's why I said there is no free lunch. But think about tidal power. The moon causes tides. We can extract energy from those tides. And the moon's orbit is increasing anyway. OK, it isn't a conventional "over unity" perpetual motion machine, but this simple example is enough to make me say a perpetual motion machine is a darn sight less impossible than teleportation. I reiterate that the energy has to come from somewhere, even if that somewhere is not obvious.

Farsight, are you saying that at this very moment I am teleporting my hands across this keyboard?

Teleportation evidently has more than one meaning, and your perception-if probably closer to the original concept than anything else here-seems essentialy to be the common travel we undertake at every moment of our lives, in some form or another, though the subject is dismantled for the sake of speed(please correct me if I am wrong).

This manner of doing so would be utterly illogical, as one would have to transmitt the matter, and the information to assemble it. And there is the fact you would lose matter whilst it was journeying (at sub-light speeds). Simply sending the data to recreate an object using matter at the destination would be far more efficient. And it would have the same effect, allowing subjects to 'travel' across vast distances at speed, whilst being in such a state as would allow immense speed. So, again, more than one meaning, more than one perception.

Perpetual motion-Are you simply refering to renewable energy? Perpetual motion is impossible, as for anything to do work it must come into contact with something else, which will cause it to lose E.

Perhaps you could totally isolate a single body from any other, and their gravatational effects in order to preserve a constant E level, but it would be of no use , and would still radiate E.

Feel free to point out anywhere I may have been a bit hazy.

E = 0.5*m*v^2

 

 

 

I think talking about lightspeed traveling while we have trouble going to Mars or the moon is like talking about highways and racecars when you haven't even invented the wheel. It's fun, but it makes little sense

Really? So because we may not have the internal combustion engine, we should not build the jet, despite the possessing the required knowledge[and ability]? Because we have'nt travelled to the nearest island by sail, we should use that before steam?

Engineering is a matter of applying knowledge to improve the manner in which endeavours may be undertaken, not using mediocre tech because it existed first. We do not presently have FTL tech, but if we work towards it, we may achieve it.

Please see the above post

I like what the mythbusters are doing.

 

In my very humble opinion, the core of science is scepticism leading to the requirement to test everything. Human knowledge was based largely on very muddy thinking until the 17th Century, when luminaries such as Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon taught the need to obtain empirical evidence. That is, test everything by experiment or novel observation.

 

The mythbusters are showing this process in being sceptical of widely held beliefs and then testing those beliefs with experiment. You might be scathing about the quality of their experiments, but they are dealing with the general public and are doing what every good educator does. Start with the basics.

Skeptic,

I apologise if I came across rather strongly in my previous post.

I am not saying experimentation is not nessicary, as it is the only manner in which one can be presently certain of things in sceince. I am merely saying that knowledge of HOW things occur is how things occur is a major part of science. Yes, mythbusters DO give explainations of why things do/may happen, as I mentioned above. Hoever, the question of if is given precedance over why, despite their both being of great importance. The experiments seem to be given precedance over both. This is obviously not compatable with scientific philosophy. It can thus give the non-scientific world an inaccurate view of science[eg children not realising the 'serious side' etc.]

And, as I mentioned before, some experiments, like that of the alkatraz escape, do not even deal with science.

Also, shall we note I did NOT condemn the show outright above? I watch the show myself, depending upon the experiments to be undertaken on the episode. My qualms are with the possbility of misinterpretation by public, which is so due to the time/attention given to how/experimentation, and, as is apparent above, I did not say that there would be no advantages for science through it by the drawing of interest to the subject.

iNow, I can see where you are coming from, but SImply because he did a greater deed than one man, it does not mean he should recieve the reward befitting a man greater than he, even if that greater man does not exist.

Basically, it could be improved without the wrecking of their viewings.

Yes. And no, as they provide some decent myths, and the physics behind them, though alot of them are most definitley not orientated towards Scientific purposes, but towards those of entertainment. Some have nothing to do with Science at all!

Ultimately, it may draw people to interest to science, but may also do nothing for it at all, even slight it due to the 'brute-force' manner in which experiments are carried out.

This is a word game. "Concievable" likely refers to possible universes. If multiple universes exist, it is impossible for one of those to exist in (about?) which others do not, whilst indeed they do exist, as it is one of several. What Piney has noticed is that due to the way Hanlon phrased his points, a paradox arises. Due to the fact this theory is considered one of the more famous ones of it's kind in physics, and has thus been considered by many scientists of significant intellect, and not been outright discredited one would expect Hanlon did indeed mean possible universes. I am quite sure he does not speak for everybody with a PhD in Theoretical Physics.

Just as Swansont and 5614 have said above, the same laws must hold. 1+-1=0. Two(or more) things that fundamentally deny the existance of the other cannot both exist.

The only thing that is impossible is defying the fundamental laws of physics, as by them all exists and occurs, without them nothing can exist, all is by them.

HOWEVER, by them, following them, of which all is, by which all occurs, one can do ANYTHING.

Assuming there were no problems in creating the hole, it would still colapse upon itself afterwards. Ignoring this, or assuming the problem was rectified in some way, you would put international travel companies out of buisness

:confused

 

 

 

 

also feel free to correct me. im a biology geek, not physics.:}

well done for entering this conversation. physics, along with mathematics is the fundamental science, and extremely enjoyable as it has the capacity to allow one to understand all sciences, and allows one to understand the universe fully, more completely

We know from accelerating basic atomic particles that there comes a speed which is almost light speed beyond which they will not go and increasing their energy just makes them more massive. EMR and gravity travel at light speed and everything else slower.

 

While in theory a rocket could travel at a constant acceleration and eventually reach almost light speed (maybe in many thousands of years), it would need a planet sized fuel tank (which would of course slow it down) for such a trip.

 

We need a new type of propulsion. If you had told people 110 years ago that we could in the year 2000 cross the Atlantic in 5 hours and ask how we did it, they would imagine some kind of super sailing ship with loots of sails and never guess something like Concorde. At present, we cannot guess what will get us to the stars but it will hopefully come along in our lifetimes.

We do not no for sure, but we can imagine. It may seem afar of, but it may not be. Developement is not always linear when those who bring it about are of sufficient ability, of sufficient logic. Virtually all have or are capable of having this ability, as long as they have the ability to perform basic logical processes, on which they can build themselves. I believe the man who invented the hyperdermic needle was actually dislexic. Nothing is impossible if one can see-at least to some extent, but preferably to a greater- reality

An orbital light/E source?(less mass, same effect due to proximity), Isolated fusion on jupiter(sketchy), Wormhole(s), for both travel to earth and to allow sunlight?

Wormholes would involve the folding andjoining of areas of our own universe?

arXiv seems to be a good source, thanks

Is there not the possibility of traveling from one point in three dimensional space to another within a period of time lesser than that which would be required in the three dimensional universe by entering, for example, a four dimensional universe, and ?bypassing? the curve or other indirect 'passage' from a to b as we could two ends of a curved two dimensional surface in 3D space?