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.

Thought that get your attention. Well anyway, on to the actual subject.

 

It seems to me that astrology can indeed predict the future. No really. It can. You see, there are many, many instances in ( has been correct).

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.

And take a look at this quote I saw from one astrology site: "Predictions can go wrong without a warning - so judicious use is recommended. These are based on horoscopes or birth charts cast for relevant times and periods."

 

 

See that, even they know, so therefore these particular people who wrote this site are trying to disown responsibility for their wrong predictions in advance.

 

So yeah, its clear I don't believe in it, but I'm just trying to argue a point as to why.

 

And yes, I know the title is misleading. It is meant to be so.

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.

A recent study in rats shows that teenagers who use marijuana may be more vulnerable to heroin addiction later in life' date=' substantiating claims that marijuana really is a "gateway" drug.

 

The test gave six rats doses of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, every three days, equivalent to smoking about one joint every three days. After the trial period was over, catheters were inserted in those rats and the control group, and the rats were allowed to press a lever to deliver heroin into their system. Those who had previously used THC were found to use more heroin daily, as the researchers believe the THC use affected their brain chemistry and actually lowered their sensitivity to opioids - requiring them to use more heroin to get a high.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9488[/quote']

 

Teenagers could care less about gateway drugs. Every teenager is completely invulnerable, especially over anything that might happen "next week". This is not a reason.

 

The naievete of the researchers is apparent, if they think that the process of addiction has a single entry point. Addiction is in the person, not the drug. NA has known that for more than 50 years. And still is the most effective program for recovering addicts - learning to live & enjoy life, without the use of drugs.

 

But again, most teenagers don't apply. Nor should they. Only about 10% of those already using drugs are addicted, and most of those inherited the predilection. Besides, as already noted, teenagers don't avoid what "could become". Those levels of abstraction are only starting to develope.

 

But, hidden in the mistakes of this study is at least one "reason". Actually it's probably the reason the rats initially took more heroin... a physical property of THC. It's phospholipid. Quickly absorbed in fatty tissue. In fact, marijuana has the longest half-life of any known drug... a usual withdrawal curve of approx. 31 days, depending on BMI.

 

Considering that there was only 3 days between these massive doses (consider the weight ratio of 100::1) the rats body tissue would soon be saturated to possibly 10x the daily average. Since each neuron has a protective sheath of fat, then all the affected rat's nervous system would be clogged with THC and impairing neural function, requiring overwhelming stimulii... such as more "hits" on the heroine space bar.

 

The kids are familiar with this phenomenon among their peers. They call it "burnout". They are unaware of the mechanics of it, and therefore don't realize how much it affects learning. Not only in the case of misfiring nerve endings, but in state induced learning as well. THC is long in the body, after the acute effects of being "stoned" have passed. Months later, the student may remember the day that lesson was taught, but not be able to recall any of the content. Falling grades has long been an indicator of marijuana abuse, for this precise reason. And most users are unaware that it is happening.

 

Teenagers do a lot of new things. Adults, on the other hand, tend to do the same things over & over. Learning is far more important for them.

 

And, while I'm at it, the phospholipid properties of THC clog other vital organs too. Many chronic users have a lowered immune system, there's sexual dysfunction, and yes, delayed growth because of interference with natural hormone production. The amotivational syndrome (as above) and the consequent loss of social mobility.

 

So... my vote that teenagers should avoid marijuana is based on a single physical property of the substance and how that interferes with the "normal" transition from child to adult. Developing in their own course. Finding their own potential.

 

The number 1 reason, teenagers "try" marijuana now is as rite of passage - trying to do what they see adults do. It's not an act of rebellion, or gateway, at all. It's wanting to grow up.

Just wondering if it is such a thing' date=' i know quite alot of people who just sit at their computers writing long unessecary sermons just because its playing with the computer (well not quite that bad).

I myself spend quite alot of 'unnessecary' time on a computer, so i was just wondering if you guys know anything on the subject?[/quote']

 

 

Here's an interesting article on the subject, from the Last Millenium. The integration factor is moot, now. But I still think you can find it on the John Hopkins University web site. While there, see the latest study, linking caffiene as a "predictor", and many more.

 

ref. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/psychiatry

 

 

John Suler's The Psychology of Cyberspace This article dated Aug 96, Revised Aug 98, March 99 (v1.8) Jump menu for this book ------------------------- Home page/Table of contents Article index Subject index Search Copyright & how to cite Comments from readers Best viewing of this book ------------------------- Life at the Palace Psychotherapy section ------------------------ About John Suler Speaking topics John's Blog Rider University -------------------------- Download this book

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Computer and Cyberspace Addiction

A hardcopy version of this article appeared as:

Suler, J. (2004). Computer and cyberspace addiction.

International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 1, 359-362.

 

 

A heated debate is rising among psychologists. With the explosion of excitement about the internet, some people seem to be a bit too excited. Some people spend way too much time there. Is this yet ANOTHER type of addiction that has invaded the human psyche?

 

Psychologists are not even sure yet what to call this phenomenon. Some label it an "Internet Addiction Disorder." But many people are addicted to their computers long before the internet enters their lives. Some people are extremely attached to their computer and don't even care about the internet. Perhaps we should call the phenomenon a "Computer Addiction." Also, let's not forget the very powerful, but now seemingly mundane and almost accepted addiction that some people develop to video games. Video games are computers too... very single-minded computers, but computers nevertheless. Or how about telephones? People get addicted to those too, and not just the sex lines. Like computers, telephones are a technologically enhanced form of communication and may fall into the category of "computer mediated communication" (aka, CMC) - as the researchers are dubbing internet activities. In the not too distant future, computer, telephone, and video technology may very well merge into one, perhaps highly addictive, beast.

 

 

Perhaps, on a broad level, it makes sense to talk about a "Cyberspace Addiction" - an addiction to virtual realms of experience created through computer engineering. Within this broad category, there may be subtypes with distinct differences. A teenager who plays hooky from school in order to master the next level of Donkey Kong may be a very different person than the middle aged housewife who spends $500 a month in AOL chat rooms - who in turn may be very different from the businessman who can't tear himself away from his finance programs and continuous internet access to stock quotes. Some cyberspace addictions are game and competition oriented, some fulfill more social needs, some simply may be an extension of workaholicism. Then again, these differences may be superficial.

Not many people are waving their fingers and fists in the air about video and work addictions. Not many newspaper articles are written about these topics either. They are passé issues. The fact that the media is turning so much attention to cyberspace and internet addictions may simply reflect the fact that this is a new and hot topic. It may also indicate some anxiety among people who really don't know what the internet is, even though everyone is talking about it. Ignorance tends to breed fear and the need to devalue.

 

Nevertheless, some people are definitely hurting themselves by their addiction to computers and cyberspace. When people lose their jobs, or flunk out of school, or are divorced by their spouses because they cannot resist devoting all of their time to virtual lands, they are pathologically addicted. These extreme cases are clear cut. But as in all addictions, the problem is where to draw the line between "normal" enthusiasm and "abnormal" preoccupation.

 

"Addictions" - defined very loosely - can be healthy, unhealthy, or a mixture of both. If you are fascinated by a hobby, feel devoted to it, would like to spend as much time as possible pursuing it - this could be an outlet for learning, creativity, and self-expression. Even in some unhealthy addictions you can find these positive features embedded within (and thus maintaining) the problem. But in truly pathological addictions, the scale has tipped. The bad outweighs the good, resulting in serious disturbances in one's ability to function in the "real" world. Almost anything could be the target of a pathological addiction - drugs, eating, exercising, gambling, sex, spending, working, etc. You name it, someone out there is obsessed with it. Looking at it from a clinical perspective, these pathological addictions usually have their origin early in a person's life, where they can be traced to significant deprivations and conflicts. They may be an attempt to control depression and anxiety, and may reflect deep insecurities and feelings of inner emptiness.

 

As yet, there is no official psychological or psychiatric diagnosis of an "Internet" or "Computer" addiction. The most recent (4th) edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (aka, DSM-IV) - which sets the standards for classifying types of mental illness - does not include any such category. It remains to be seen whether this type of addiction will someday be included in the manual. As is true of any official diagnosis, an "Internet Addiction Disorder" or any similarly proposed diagnosis must withstand the weight of extensive research. It must meet two basic criteria. Is there a consistent, reliably diagnosed set of symptoms that constitutes this disorder? Does the diagnosis correlate with anything - are there similar elements in the histories, personalities, and future prognosis of people who are so diagnosed. If not, "where's the beef?" It's simply a label with no external validity.

 

So far, researchers have only been able to focus on that first criteria - trying to define the constellation of symptoms that constitutes a computer or internet addiction. Psychologist Kimberly S. Young at the Center for On-Line Addiction (see the links at the end of this article) classifies people as Internet-dependent if they meet during the past year four or more of the criteria listed below. Of course, she is focusing specifically on internet addiction, and not the broader category of computer addiction:

 

 

Do you feel preoccupied with the Internet or on-line services and think about it while off line?

Do you feel a need to spend more and more time on line to achieve satisfaction?

Are you unable to control your on-line use?

Do you feel restless or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop your on-line use?

Do you go on line to escape problems or relieve feelings such as helplessness, guilt, anxiety or depression?

Do you lie to family members or friends to conceal how often and how long you stay online?

Do you risk the loss of a significant relationship, job, or educational or career opportunity because of your on-line use?

Do you keep returning even after spending too much money on on-line fees?

Do you go through withdrawal when off line, such as increased depression, moodiness, or irritability?

Do you stay on line longer than originally intended?

 

In what he intended as a joke, Ivan Goldberg proposed his own set of symptoms for what he called "Pathological Computer Use" (see Internet Addiction Disorder Support Group on this web site). Other psychologists are debating other possible symptoms of internet addiction, or symptoms that vary slightly from Young's criteria and Goldberg's parody of such criteria. These symptoms include:

 

drastic lifestyle changes in order to spend more time on the net

general decrease in physical activity

a disregard for one's health as a result of internet activity

avoiding important life activities in order to spend time on the net

sleep deprivation or a change in sleep patterns in order to spend time on the net

a decrease in socializing, resulting in loss of friends

neglecting family and friends

refusing to spend any extended time off the net

a craving for more time at the computer

neglecting job and personal obligations

 

On a listserv devoted to the cyberpsychology, Lynne Roberts (robertsl@psychology.curtin.edu.au) described some of the possible physiological correlates of heavy internet usage, although she didn't necessarily equate these reactions with pathological addiction:>

 

A conditioned response (increased pulse, blood pressure) to the modem connecting

An "altered state of consciousness" during long periods of dyad/small group interaction (total focus and concentration on the screen, similar to a mediation/trance state).

Dreams that appeared in scrolling text (the equivalent of MOOing).

Extreme irritability when interrupted by people/things in "real life" while immersed in c-space.

 

In my own article on "addictions" to the Palace, a graphical MOO/chat environment, I cited the criteria that psychologists often use in defining ANY type of addiction. It's clear that the attempts to define computer and internet addiction draw on these patterns that are perhaps common to addictions of all types - patterns that perhaps point to deeper, universal causes of addiction:

 

Are you neglecting important things in your life because of this behavior?

Is this behavior disrupting your relationships with important people in your life?

Do important people in your life get annoyed or disappointed with you about this behavior?

Do you get defensive or irritable when people criticize this behavior?

Do you ever feel guilty or anxious about what you are doing?

Have you ever found yourself being secretive about or trying to "cover up" this behavior?

Have you ever tried to cut down, but were unable to?

If you were honest with yourself, do you feel there is another hidden need that drives this behavior?

 

If you're getting a bit confused or overwhelmed by all these criteria, that's understandable. This is precisely the dilemma faced by psychologists in the painstaking process of defining and validating a new diagnostic category. On the lighter side, consider some of the more humorous attempts to define internet addiction. Below is one list from The World Headquarters of Netaholics Anonymous. Although this is intended as humor, note the striking similarity of some of the items to the serious diagnostic criteria... There is a kernel of truth even in a joke:

 

 

Top 10 Signs You're Addicted to the Net

 

 

10. You wake up at 3 a.m. to go to the bathroom and stop and check your e-mail on the way back to bed.

9. You get a tattoo that reads "This body best viewed with Netscape Navigator 1.1 or higher."

 

8. You name your children Eudora, Mozilla and Dotcom.

 

7. You turn off your modem and get this awful empty feeling, like you just pulled the plug on a loved one.

 

6. You spend half of the plane trip with your laptop on your lap...and your child in the overhead compartment.

 

5. You decide to stay in college for an additional year or two, just for the free Internet access.

 

4. You laugh at people with 2400-baud modems.

 

3. You start using smileys in your snail mail.

 

2. The last mate you picked up was a JPEG.

 

1. Your hard drive crashes. You haven't logged in for two hours. You start to twitch. You pick up the phone and manually dial your ISP's access number. You try to hum to communicate with the modem.

 

You succeed.

 

 

 

There's also the intriguing epistemological dilemma concerning the researchers who study cyberspace addictions. Are they addicted too? If they indeed are a bit preoccupied with their computers, does this make them less capable of being objective, and therefore less accurate in their conclusions? Or does their involvement give them valuable insights, as in participant observation research? There's no simple answer to these questions.

 

 

The Integration Principle: Bringing the Worlds Together

 

As a result of all the online work I've been doing, here's the premise I'm thinking about a lot:

 

It's a problem when your face-to-face life becomes dissociated from your cyberlife. It's healthy when your f2f life is integrated with your cyberlife.

People become "addicted" to the internet, or act out pathologically in cyberspace, when they have dissociated it from their f2f life. Their cyberspace activity becomes a world unto itself. They don't talk about it with the people in their f2f life. It becomes a walled-off substitute or escape from their life. Cyberspace almost becomes a dissociated part of their own mind - a sealed-off intrapsychic zone where fantasies and conflicts are acted out. Reality testing is lost. Fixing this dissociation is an implicit or explicit component of many of the techniques for helping internet addicted people.

 

On the other hand, healthy internet use means integrating the f2f and cyberspace worlds. You talk about your online life with your real world family and friends. You bring your real identity, interests, and skills into your online community. You call on the phone or meet in-person the people you know online. And it works the other way too: some of the people you knew primarily in the real world, you also contact through email or chat. "Bringing in the real world" is an important principle for helping people who are addictively stuck in cyberspace. And its also a powerful tool for intervening with people who are addicted to misbehaving in cyberspace, such as snerts. How do you cure an acting out adolescent who is hiding behind cyberspace anonymity? Address him by his real name. Find out about his real world interests and talk to him about it. And if all else fails, contact his parents.

 

Now let me go back again to the basic premise: "It's a problem when one's in-person life becomes dissociated from one's cyberlife." The beauty of this premise, I think, is that it also applies to the mirror image scenario. Some people vilify the internet. They want nothing to do with it. That also is dissociation, a failure to integrate. That also is a problem.

 

 

See also in The Psychology of Cyberspace:

 

Why is This Thing Eating My Life? - An article that examines the healthy and unhealthy aspects of "addictions" to the Palace, a multimedia chat environment (see The Palace Study for more information about the Palace).

 

To Get What You Need: Healthy and Pathological Internet Use - A more in-depth, academic version of Palace article listed above.

 

Bringing Online and Offline Living Together: The Integration Principle - The rationale and strategies for integrating online and offline living.

 

An interview with me by Morris Jones from Internet Australasia magazine. In the interview I respond to Jones' questions about this addiction article.

 

Cold Turkey: Messages from an Ex-Palace "Addict" - A Palace user decides to break the habit.

 

Mom, Dad, Computer (Transference Reactions to Computers) - One reason why some people become so attached to their computer is that it satisfies intense (and often unconscious) interpersonal needs from their past.

 

Cyberspace as Dream World: Illusion and Reality at the Palace - Some people may be drawn to cyberspace because it fulfills the need for an altered state of consciousness, similar to dreams. This may be especially true of the highly visual and fantasy-based MOO environments like the Palace.

 

Internet Addiction Disorder Support Group - Ivan Goldberg's parody of "Pathological Computer Use."

 

Internet Addiction Questionnaire - devised by two German students.

 

Internet Addiction in a Nutshell - My opinion of this topic, as concisely as possible! This article is

offered for CE credit.

Click here for information

 

 

 

 

See Also On Other Web Sites:

 

COLA -- Center for On-Line Addiction (http://netaddiction.com) - This comprehensive project conducted by Dr. Kimberly Young is devoted to the study of cyberspace addictions.

 

Azy Barak's reference list on net addiction and pathological use.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

back to the Psychology of Cyberspace home page

http://www.rider.edu/suler/psycyber/psycyber.html

Let's just assume time travel IS possible, how would you go about to test or prove it? If you were to send a probe you'd have to make sure it survives the journey and doesn't corrupt the timeline by exposing sensitive data.

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.

I think the reasoning is any synapse can connect to any other synapse via a unique neural pathway' date=' often transiting through other intervening neurons and synapses.

 

Therefore I don't understand the statements about the brain having "more storage bits than there are atoms in the universe" (often repeated, don't know original reference), or 10^8432 bits (above Wang paper).[/quote']

 

The original quote, now apparently lost in obscurity, did not neccessarily result from GIGO. It could've been a more generalized statement, such as: There's more capacity in the human brain than all the atoms in the universe. (ie. the capacity to Imagine or Create)

 

We may be trying to blow this up.... Bigger than it's original file size.

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.

It is clarified throughout physical geometry that each given physical dimension proceeds at right angles from the dimension preceding it.

 

Do you question this definition?

 

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

Nobody knows how causality really works, so untill we build a time machine its just people arguing with no evidence to support anybody's claims.

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 accordance to the pathways theory of time- every decision made breaks time into several different pathways (One for each possible outcome). Each one of those pathways then split at the next decision.

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.