Teotihuacan

Observable, and that's what science is all about: Being able to make the same conclusions from observations based on the same method and apparatus used. Replication of Results. Consider for a moment, that Newton had to invent math, to explain his new idea. Otherwise, it was just a bruised apple, daydeaming of an afternoon. One thing I really like about math... it's cyclic, and proves itself within its own constructs. You don't have to "remember" it, just figure it. There may be other explanations of gravity, that fit within Newtonian physics and calculus, without contradiction. A sea of tachyons is one of them. Something of Zero mass may not be bonded by E=mc^2, a null multiplicand yields zero. These things could be still speeding from (or in) the beginning, with essentially no energy loss, and are no more or less than residual background radiation. Their propogation would assign to Gravity both the attraction of bodies and the expansion of space, no need for an exotic "dark Matter" hypothosis. The idea deserves merit... if no other reason than the simplicity that results. As for "observable" effects... An indirect observation (similar to detecting a planet by the wobble of a star) could be seen in Cosmic Rays, and which pervade the known universe. Known to travel at speeds in excess of 40% C. Why not talk or speculate about it? After all, could the elusive graviton be the mythical tachyon, and knock us off this blind alley impasse about not knowing how Gravity and Time work - having to construct increasingly complex baffles to assauge our ignorance.

What happens to the formula, when the distance is Zero? There is no field to propogate between the magnets, but between the various molecules themselves. This causes the weaker aligned molecules to "flip" over. Essentially reversing the poles. The repulsion is still there, only this time on a molecular level, altering their alignment within the metallic lattice rather than the physical object being displaced. If you can measure the strength of magnetic flux afterward, it should be weaker in both magnets because of this scattering effect or degaussing. Similarly, two magnets together will gather strength by enhancing each other's molecular alignment. A "keeper" on a horseshoe magnet does a similar purpose, because without it, the earth's geomagnetic force field will degauss it, over time. btw... there are lots of magnetic metals, besides iron (fer in latin).

I'm suprised that no-one has mentioned the latent heat or "heat sink" effect the 80 cal./gm needed to effect the state change will have. Once it is liquid, this will resume at 1 cal./gm. per degree Celsius. Obviously a much greater potential for rapid temperature fluctuations and weather perturbations, and not a constant dance with the freezing point and coherent flow, as it is now.

Yes, mostly in the conduct of electrical transmission here on Earth, based on a helio-centric astrology - predicting sunspots, as a function of planetary movement and the resulting interfernce, some time later. Again, Astrology is rightly a Pre-Science (not psedo). One of the Arcane Arts. Brought to us by the Flat Earth Society at the Centre of the Universe. Everything measures by the distance of finger and thumb, the International Space Station is still ordered after the width of a Roman's Chariott! .... Arcane, but not neccessarily untrue predicted effects. Consider, for a moment, what thousands of years of such a shell game, would give for "predictability" among corealations? Even today, after only 100's of years, most Americans pride themselves in knowing where someone is from (on the face of the Earth) by how they sound. Any established civilization or culture, would do the same... evolving it's own truth. And now, looking at the influences of the planets, as they rotate among the stars... We can place them on an overlay of the strongest extraterestrial X-ray sources, that are periodically eclipsed. According, of course, to the time one was concieved, not born. The actual astrological forecast is made upon 3 planes. The person, the place and the time. Based on a duodecimal system, and various extrapatalations. An essential 12^3 +n variations. Cards is similar, only on 4 planes, and with 13 per suit. But, then again, Tarrot was another arcane art that purported to tell one's future. Hard to say what's the enduring attraction?

The header might be a little misleading, because the first inflatable satellite was an early launch of the Telstar program in 1960. It had also the misfortune of a puncture, not long after being deployed in orbit. The winter sky was really crisp, everyone went out to look. It was easy to see because of the zig-zag motion, and the speed with which it flew by. I don't know if NASA or AT&T ever patented or not, but that "accident" is probably why inflatables haven't been tried before this.

History: 5,000 years ago, the time probe was a Pyramid and yes, the Timeline wasn't disturbed untill the tomb was opened, exposing the sensitive and deadly virus or as it was known then, King Tut's curse. He was shooting to traverse Eternity.

It produces about the straightest line we know of, a kind of inborn compass for all life on this planet. Gravity. Actually, it's a similli of a Venturii effect. With graviton particles whizzing by at narrowly sub light speeds. Masses are attracted to each other. In that same instant, gravitons are expanding the space between the clumps of those same masses. nb. We already use this technology with muons to detect unknown burial chambers etc. within solid masses.

I think we overlook the serendipitous factor. That these "adaptations" may've been available, long before a need arose... and then the natural selection took place. Otherwise, various anamolous changes that may/or may not be folded in... depending upon extraneous factors, as to "utility". I think I had the answer to the earlier question: >quot about vascular valves. That somewhere along the line an organism with a circulatory system survived an aneurism. That healed, but left a flap of skin. Which, naturally fell toward the rate of flow. And could've resulted in entire "families" dieing prematurely of heart attacks over generations, untill some survived. And later had an advantage in a greater circuclatory system through walking. Likewise, consider the 1,000's of years generations spend huddled bya afire, eating boiled square roots or anything else the children could find. less hair maent less burns. Likewise, sickly bodies. All because abstract enough to percieve beyond immediate threat, and act upon the belief. To actually tolerate and manipulte fire, as the ultimate "claw". The power to abstract, deep within a cave; when all the while yes, his family is starving. And to "see" the whole animal, to record his vision, to fulfill the destiny. He and/or his shaman. As we watch the Olympics we see our "best of generations" do the same thing.... visualise themselves, and ready - achieve.

hmm... "gaviton orbit" may be his eupheurism for earth bound, but that aside.. It is possible to be looking through a Spyglass, backward. If Gravity, although being the weakest of the forces, propogates itself across all dimensions... then, of course, it's agent of propogation would have to be unidimensional. Gravity would be the force responsible for the clumping together of matter and the massive expansion of space. No mystery. Just as electrons seem to be made of the same "non-substance" as a theoretical graviton may be, then gravitrons could be tachyons too. At different levels, maybe "smaller" as you suggest. Since elctromagnetism is a 2D propogation. 1D may be even less. **note free elctrons gather on surfaces, discharge at points. Cosmic Rays are the closest to unidimensional objects we have in this Universe. Gravity could be a venturi type phenomena, drawing floated objects together, while space expands with the passage of time. Teotihuacan

Davinci determined the same thing. And, you are both right... a billiard ball moves in fps. For all intents & purposes, a 1.0E6 ratio, is "instant". That's one thing so intriguing about the Theory of Everything. In a way, harkens to a return to more humanistic systems of measurement, since it would have to apply in all instances to be "everything". Not simply a balance between macro & micro entities, laws or distortions. The question, though, appears to be striking at the speed of the agent of gravity, which has been omitted from the Newtonian calculations and subsequent additions. Granted, no difference in the eventual outcomes. As witnessed by the sucessful landing on an asteroid. The reason, however, that gravity is the "weakest" force remains a mystery. Consider, a moment, that gravity may not be the base force... but merely a "side effect". An incidental force. Like the sunlight is a side effect of the strong force, or the wind as the actual power of the sun, as we know it today. Then there's reason to believe it's such a weak net force. The gravitron may actually travel faster than the speed of light, although not in "body" of this dimension. We know (or theorize) that gravity is the only force that applies cross dimensionally. If so, then gravity itself may operate that way. All very interesting questions

It's just that each car will have to "swallow" an awful lot of oxygen in order to be efficient. And why carry water around for fuel anyway? It's much too heavy.

Even without the moderation effect of being disolved in water, you would be hard pressed to beat the elctro-chemical bonds of chlorine and hydrogen. Able to affix any metallic base and flood the area with free hydrogen ions. Beyond the laws that govern the Periodic Table, there could be a theoretical acid particle, on a sub atomic level. Or some incredible convoluted chain, that would dissolve at once upon contact. But all that would be speculation.

New light may be shone with the discovery of the largest Pulsar, as posted 08-20-2005, 10:44 AM by Martin, Physics Expert: A 2.1 Solar Mass Pulsar Measured by Relativistic Orbital Decay The theory behind the integral measurement, as reported by Martin, seems to confirm Prof. Li's hypothesis about proton spin... quot< They (twin stars) spiral in gradually because they radiate off energy in the form of gravitational waves-- and goes on to define "gravitational waves" as----mass moving back and forth, or around, radiates gravity waves (analogously to how charge moving back and forth in an antenna radiates electromagnetic waves). (or indeed, if electricity was used to produce proton spin) This loss of energy, carried away by gravity waves, is what was being measured, enquot> Since, in a further post from -----quote from Ask Astromer, Kirby link----- "....The cinder is prevented from further gravitational collapse because neutrons are particles with 1/2-unit of quantum spin, and only two of these can exist in the same quantum state. This produces what is called Fermi Degeneracy Pressure which at these densities and neutron star masses, can be as strong as gravity, but a repulsive force." Which, of course, is what prof Li was proposing but on a micronic scale. If so, this brings her back in the running for discovering the mechanizm of gravity that has eluded us so long.

It would still take whatever the speed of light for the spotlight to reach the clouds, before being reflected back, to seemingly a simultaneous illumination of the far clouds from the observers' effect. Is this much different than Davinci's insistance that the speed of light was infinite... and yet is calculated at approx. 300,000 km/sec. But, perhaps, it's not really a constant. Just a convenient mile post at the time.

The measure of an addictive substance is whether or not more than 50% of a test poplation of naieve users return to use again. If so, it is declared an "addictive substance". Wether or not the test subjects are human, conscious or not, makes little difference. Interestingly, the substance you picked - nicotine. Under this definition it is the most addictive substance known to man. Yes, it is also poisonous, but deletrious effects are not neccesarily a mark of an addictive substance. Under the same definition, alcohol is not an addictive substance. Generally, the seeking behaviour is about 10%. Yet alcohol addiction is the greatest in the entire world. And causes 10x as many deaths annually than all other drugs combined! Further, with the advent of "designer drugs" being invented every day, the mis-nomer "non-addictive" simply means that not enough longitudinal studies have been done. Again, if more than 50% of subjects return to use, then it is declared an addictive substance. And, for our purposes, the subjects must represent the human race. Perhaps the self-help groups like Narcotics Anonymous have the right idea: Addiction is in the person, not the drug. Indeed, even with an addictive substance, a certain percentage of subjects do not return to use. It is probably more of a susceptability index for an inert substance, without any personal elements factored in.

Reading the article again, I can see that it actually is a centrifugal effect, but on a subatomic scale. The theory seems to be that the ions are spinning around a magnetic field, and that the oscilation of their collective mass becomes focused by that field to produce the active, counteractive or modifying effect hoped for. The construction of such a magnetic lattice upon which to affix the axes of these subatomic ions is probably the greatest technical problem, since magnetism exists in a state of flux, and although parallel, tends to curve from pole to pole and like poles repell each other, regardless of their source. Obviously, the use of super conductors is hoped to shrink the field and contain the aberrant flux in an assimilated grid matrix. The idea itself, may be sound. Although I do question her estimate that 1000 watts could produce the effect to the edge of space (ie. 100 mles). It is barely enough to propell photons that far, let alone massive molecules. However, gravity is a very weak force, which we tend to notice for it's cumulative effects, as in uniform acceleration of an object. Perhaps she's speaking of the actual power needed to negate the effects of gravity and not the total amount of power neccessary to make the mechanism work or actually move the object. Or, even a misprint, if she meant 1000 kw. 750 HP does sound more like it. But yes, assuming that the theory is sound and a prototype can be built, there is a prospect for a more portable & localized gravity simulation, than a large centrifical wheel. Two or more units would be neccessary to produce the effect and to mask it outside the vessel with some sort of dispersion effect. Another way of course, is to design a spacecraft that has uniform acceleration and deceleration during it's journey. Constantly overcoming momentum to produce a gravity like effect, not unlike an elevator starting or stopping. My question is completely different. It could be that prof. Li has stumbled upon what would've been the theory of gravity, if it is a function of mass as Newton calculated. Perhaps it is not? Her effect is clearly not gravity, but could affect it. And hers is based on a kind of mass displacement.

In case you were wondering, Nikolai Tesla was an engineer for the General Electric company, and built the first electrical generating plant at Niagra Falls, N.Y. He was a contemporary of Thomas Edison, with whom he had many arguments, and is responsible for the whole world being wired for A/C transmission of electricity. A prolific inventor in his own right. He rarely patented any of them, and is considered the original "mad scientist". One invention he is now officially credited for is the Radio, overturning Marconi's claim. His Tesla coil, which is now used primarily as a parlour game, was the basis of the machine that Marconi experimented with when he transmitted a voice message across the Atlantic Ocean and is a radio transmitter in it's own right. The radio, btw, was what Edison was trying to invent when he built a telephone 2 yrs. before Bell, but didn't patent it, because it still had a physical connection (ie. wires) to the reciever. There is no "conspiricy theory" as far as I know, about Tesla. You can readily find plans to build your own Tesla coil out of parts from a monitor, some PVC pipe and a neon balast resistor. Or, you can buy one at Radio Shack. Also, much of the inspiration for the Star Wars missle defense system (which won the Cold War) came from Tesla's unfinished work, many years after his death.

Nikolai Tesla spent his fortune inventing a device that could convert extraterrestrial sources of electricity to deliver a cheap, unlimited supply, anywhere on earth. Industrialized nations of the 1930's did not want it. He failed to market & perfect his prototype. All that remains is a few faded photographs and half-baked ideas about what it was. Yes, apparently the U.S. Navy is conducting experiements in Alaska today, using his notes and drawings. Any preliminary results still being secret. There are also vast extraterrestrial hydrocarbon resources here in our solar system. The gas giant planets contain a lot. But one of the difficulties in "mining" it could be in overcoming the massive Gravity to extract it. Further probes may discover literal clouds of this kind of oil, floating in free space. Then, it would only being a matter of containing it, to transport back. As for ready replacement for oil, a major cheap & renewable source here on earth, is alcohol. It is estimated that a gallon could be distilled from unused agricultural waste and delivered to the consumer for less than $1 (without tax). Most gasoline engines could be converted easily by 1/4 turn on whatever aspirating device to mix with air in burning. Further, alcohol is more efficient and cleaner burning fuel, producing only CO2 and H2O as gaseous emmissions. Yes, gasahol has gained popularity and alcohol is used in top fuelers. But I suspect that the same financial dynamic that killed Tesla's project is still working against a cheap, renewable and universal source of energy for mankind's locomotion.

First of all... Welcome Xyph Interesting article. Wonder what has happened in the six years since? Of course, there was no known note of a string theory posit that gravity may also be the only known force that acts across all dimensions - time included. Hmmm. Further to our discussion on the effecacy of Pseudo science, I found myself wondering today about the rapid dissemination of scientific knowledge, almost as soon as it is "discovered". People can grasp, utilize and re-interpret the concepts quite readily, when only hours before they would've been at a loss to explain any of it. How do such hard won, researched scientific method, replicable apparatus and observation, peer reviewed and theoretically sound results enter the purview of popular science? And, not many hours after thinking that, you give us this wonderful article from Popular Mechanics that shows how psedo science is editorialized. Which, btw, also opens the door for the discussion I wanted to begin in this more relaxed section about our perceptions of this mysterious force they call gravity. You beat me to it. If I may... a point of reference from that article you posted. A paragraph that states what everyone knows: "Everyone knows that gravity is the glue that keeps our feet on the ground and the planets on their orbits. It operates on every single molecule and atom in our bodies. Physicists define gravity as the attractive force between two masses. They also say it is the weakest and most pervasive of the four basic forces of nature. The others are the strong force and weak force that operate within the atomic nucleus and the electromagnetic force that explains everything from refrigerator magnets to light bulbs, telecommunications to chemistry." (1) So... what do we really know about Gravity? Apart from it being a distinct and unique type of force. What kind of properties must it have to behave in the way it does, and still be ...the weakest and most pervasive of the four basic forces of nature. Isn't that beginning with a contradiction, being ...the weakest and most pervasive? Is it the oldest? the fastest? What is this fundamental force that we have known longer, even than ions (ie. fire), struggled against but still know even less? ref(1) op.cit. PopularMechanics "TAMING GRAVITY" BY JIM WILSON Published on: October 1, 1999

I think, first, we need a working definition of the word "drugs". One of the best I've seen is: "A Drug is any non-food substance that affects body function." From this, it is obvious that a drug does not contribute to the physical growth or sustinance of an organism, although it does affect or alter it in some way. Benign substances are not drugs. Therefore, the overall, net effect of drugs (by definition) is physically deficit, regardless of any percieved beneficial effect. The projection, then, is that long term drug effects would be deletrious (ie. "Your Brain on Drugs"). If we look at the long term symptoms of addiction, we will see that Late Phase is where tissue adaptation occurs. Body tissues actually adapt to the presence of a drug, and will not function properly without it. Many of these adaptations are irreversible and remain, even if the individual stops using. So, it is indeed tissue damage... even if not destroyed. An example may be found in whole organs adapting. Such as the liver, the body's incinerator - that burns all the garbage in the bloodstream. If operating at or near max., the liver will swell, actually be able to burn "more". But then, because it is running hot, will develope some small holes where the biles leak out. These biles are toxic and tend to float to the top of the skin (ie. "liver spots"). They could inadvertanly oxidize other tissues on their way there. So, yes, there is consequential damage due to tissue adaptation, and not neccessarily direct damage from the drug substance itself. Indeed, most drugs are not toxic in so-called "normal" dosages. Overdose usually causes damage from consequential processes. Like in the case of a depressant drug slowing one's breathing to the point of asphyxia or the inability of a gag reflex to clear one's throat. Obviously, lack of oxygen causes brain damage. Some drugs are, however, directly toxic. Alcohol is number one. Not only is it a solvent, attacking the mylar sheath around every neuron, but contains an OH- radical that is so strong it kills living tissue on contact! The burning sensation of a "stiff drink", is actually the tingling death of cells in the throat. A "good drunk" it is estimated, kills about 10,000 brain cells. Cocaine has similar radicals in it's makeup, be they Chlorine or Hydroxy, responsible for ruptured nazal septums and other tissue damage. Unlike alcohol, which acts globally on the body, cocaine tends to lock itself to neural receptors, effectively blocking the re-uptake of endorphines. Without the natural balance of internal body chemistry, the individual will often harm themselves or others. Nicotine is carcinogenic. Cancerous growths can impeded other normal body functions. Perhaps the most toxic ingredient in smoking tobacco is carbon monoxide. CO causes brain damage directly by oxygen starvation. Also, nicotine causes blood vessels to constrict acutely, putting up the blood pressure and reducing oxygen flow. So, yes. Globally, specifically in long-term addiction/abuse, in each drug classs and for each substance, there are damages caused. Primarily because these are non-food subdstances, being introduced to our bodies for some "other" purpose.

The rt. angle is for our human benefit. It is a copy of the opposing finger & thumb. Our "crib note", you might say. Consider again your example? A point can only exist. A point has no direction. In fact, it has no dimension either, because it is all of it. A line exists between two points. Two potential directions, one dimension. A plane exists upon two lines. They do not have to be at 90 degrees. Nor do they have to intersect, merely be distinct. An infinite number of potential directions. Two dimensions. A space exists upon two planes.They do not have to be at 90 degrees. Nor do they have to intersect, merely be distinct. An infinite number of potential directions. Three dimensions. A time may exist upon two spatial distinctions. Probaly don't have to be at 90 degrees, nor intersect. Possibly only one direction. Maybe an infinity of dimensions. So, if we discard the two anomolus samples, or account them as incomplete... non intuitive "proof". The seeming progression is: {1,0,0} {2,2,1} {2,&,2} {2,&,3}... {2,1,&}. (note: using &Ampersand as Infinity symbol) A derived "Law" then becomes, not only that each dimension contains all lower dimensions, but by observation, that the minimum number of determinates for any given dimension is 2 of it's next lower sample. Given that "present" time is dependant upon two other samples, ie. past and future, I would propose 3 distinct dimensions of time. But that is pure speculation, from the gaps in data generated, if so, and not this assumption of a linear progression that clearly could be infinite as one dimension. We have considered Dimensions 0,1,2,3,...& as in an estimate of "All". But is there a progression of numbers in direction? The ordered set is: {0,2,&,&...1} Immediately, the idea of similitude begins to strain. Some form of quadratic equation is neccessary to relate the two. How many directions in any given dimension, and whether they are aspects the same thing? Does Direction = Dimension. Your theory of point, Zero dimension, may support the derived "Law" here though, in that it may've taken two distinct incidence of "off" and "on" to establish that point that doesn't exist only because it is and nothing else. Maybe all points are binary in that way. Interesting discussion.

undefinedundefinedundefined That would be like saying we didn't know anything about coefficients of heat expansion untill the steam engine was built. Yes, we learned a lot about it afterward, verified theory etc. But that machine would not have been invented unless the effect was already noted in natural phenomena - the rattling of the lid on a boiling pot. The certain knowledge that a vapour could force actual movement of a heavy object. Yes, many myths did include a "horseless carriage" or similar mechanical vehicle over the many millenia before, but all were driven by some magical, unworldly process as part of the myth, not an evidenturary truth. Likewise, your point, time has very few known objective benchmarks. But, being in this world, everyone developes a subjective relation to it. Blind men will agrue about an elephant untill they listen to what the other is saying, and begin to realize the complexity by considering closer to full perspective. Time travel does exist, though. We do seem to transist in a forward motion. Whether or not it is at a fixed rate, determined direction or even contiguous is still a matter of subjective perception. If this is analogous to a Flow Chart, then it is a "map" of a moment's potentials in all cases, and not neccessarily imutable. Yes, we can /trace the actual path in a specific trial, but, the next run of the same program can deviate significantly from any given point, still within (pre)determined "flow" pathways. My emerging question is that perhaps we are too stuck on a linear concept of time, when in fact, time often appears to occur in cycles. A circle is a two dimensional object at least. Also, looking at some of the science fiction elaborated bafflegab contained here and obtuse explanations, it is as if one has tried to determine plausibility factors - a time line on a surface, without lifting the pencil from the paper. What if worm holes or wrinkles existed in time? Or time was even more multi-dimensional than our "vision" allows? Again, on an analogy: That a line is drawn, and then partly erased. Does that mean the line never existed? Or, has merely changed form by some "present" method, that doesn't alter the past at all, but simply continues to change(trans) form, as time has wont to do. I think we can do better with this, if we concieve time in three distinct dimensions - as past, present, future coordinates. Where all of time is the "container" of any given action. And each dimension, certain aspects of that. But now, I run a foul. By expounding my subjective flux, rather than respect or seek confluence with yours or universal intuition as self evident.