npts2020

Knowing the shape of the visible universe should help our understanding of the mechanisms involved in cosmic expansion, plus it may give clues about what lies beyond

Thanks for the link. What I wonder most about the Michelson-Morley experiments, is why anyone would think that the ether would have any measurable effect on photons to begin with? I mean, it has been since their time that we have even been able to measure the effects of gravity on them. Imho ether is neither provable nor disprovable with our current state of knowledge, it is inferred from the lack of other explanation of exactly what "space" is. I am aware of the "virtual particles" that are supposed to appear and disappear in so-called empty space, my question is where do they come from (or go to)? Are we violating physical laws temporarily by creating something from nothing? Is the creation/destruction action perfect (no other particles or forces involved before or after) if so how do we even know of their existence? I accept that my view could be completely wrong about this but these questions, plus the fact that a large percentage of the universe has never been directly observed, are the basis of my belief in ether.

Thanks for the clarification. I dont claim to have the greatest knowledge of cosmology but the whole idea of a "vaccuum" really bothers me. I have read about virtual particles in a vaccuum but where do they come from? Are they something being created from nothing? I am aware that human knowledge (especially this human) on this subject is rudimentary at best but why is it that most physicists have discarded the idea of some kind of ether, Einstein himself did a lot of work on it I have heard?

yes but there are other limits to it as well that will keep the photons at a much lower energy.

Just wondering what that upper limit is and any idea why at that point?

One thing missing from the poll is a no way for any reason answer. With current technology it is definitely possible to build such an airplane. Whether you could carry enough shielding to not give massive doses of radiation to anything on board or nearby and make reinforcements in case of crash strong enough to not spread the contents over a large area seem to be the main technological hurdles. Both at present would probably require more weight than any plane can carry. Even if the weight problem is worked out how much more than the reactor and associated subsystems could any plane carry and could you ever convince the public to allow someone to build it?

I dont like it. You are creating something (space and at a prodigious rate I might add) from nothing (universal acceleration?).

You can hardly call a vacuum "something". But the idea that the universe has to expand into some space, is merely a limitation of the human mind.

The expansion of the universe is caused by something (supposedly vestiges of the big bang), where does this energy go? Why have we not observed parts of the universe moving at different speeds, from gravitational or magnetic effects, that are the same distance from us? Is there any such thing as a true vacuum (in other words prove there is no ether)? Does the absence of anything we can detect at present mean that there is nothing there (exactly where is all of the missing univese anyway)?

While what you say about the spots on the ballon might be true for those spots, it is not true of the entire system. Does the system operate with different rules from the spots?

Clarify this please.

See above.

well, the wavelength can't get any bigger than the universe so i guess that imposes a physical limit on it.

Nor can the wavelength get any smaller than the total energy in the universe?

Something maybe even more fun than climbing the tower and a lot safer is to get a group of people together under the power line in the dark and tell them you are going to perform magic. You unsheath a flourescent lightbulb, being careful to keep it perpendicular to the direction of the lines, say some mumbo-jumbo, then thrust the lightbulb into the air, turning it paralel to the lines. The tube will glow enough to be seen but not like if it was lit up by a ballast, so you apologize for your power being weak that particular evening and do something else, like dropping mentos into a bottle of diet pepsi.

I am not sure if this is really adding to resolution but a couple of things really bother me about the debate on this thread. Firstly, is the idea that any significant number of climatologists are somehow profiting from their studies other than "making a paycheck" when most would stand to make far more if their research came to the opposite conclusion. The few people I have had a chance to talk with that make that "paycheck" have all told me they would like for their study to contradict scientific convention on global warming but that the effects were generally worse than predicted and none were better. (How much money would big corporations give to somebody who could actually disprove the science behind global warming rather than raise doubts with gobbledygook?) The second thing is that people have spent a lot of effort arguing about computer modeling. Computer models (climate change ones anyway) are predictions of outcomes using many complex variables and can be tweaked to get almost any result. Having said that, the valid variables all fall within relatively narrow ranges, making nearly all of the models conclude that humans are causing climate change (using the same logic of being at a craps table and rolling snake-eyes (2) 98 out of 100 times and concluding the dice are loaded). Before there was even a computer model, former presidential candidate Barry Commoner wrote several books mostly about energy use and climate change, imh non-scientist opinion "The Closing Circle" and "The Poverty of Power" are the best and describe dead-on what is going on climatewise some 30 years later. BTW Mr. Commoner does propose solutions as do many who are strong believers in the sciece behind climate change, its just that many skeptics dont like them. Just my two cents.

The mechanism of those fields is rather well understood actually. There are mediating particles, and neither electromagnetic interaction nor gravity is instantaneous. Recently the "speed" of gravity was measured to be around c.

 

The mechanism might be well understood by someone but that is not me. I will accept this for now but would be interested in how the speed of gravity was figured out.

 

 

And I'd rather not call space "nothingness" as it has various measurable characteristics. Nothingness is a rather abstract human concept.

 

Could space be what is created when a photon or subatomic particle finally "dies" when it loses all of its energy?

 

There doesn't need to be anything outside it. A rather good analogy is that the universe is a balloon, and that the perceived 3D space is reduced to two dimensions; the balloon's surface. Let's say there are dots on the balloon; as the balloon expands the dots get separated more and more, just like galaxies are doing according to our observations. The inside or outside of the balloon do not correspond to any physical location. In this model the universe wraps around itself.

I dont like it. You are creating something (space and at a prodigious rate I might add) from nothing (universal acceleration?). While what you say about the spots on the ballon might be true for those spots, it is not true of the entire system. Does the system operate with different rules from the spots? Unfortunately, it is easier to poke holes in a theory than it is to actually craft a valid alternative. That is where I am now on this subject, sorry.

Many years ago I was in the navy and worked at a reactor onboard ship, yet I barely understand the physics behind higgs bosons. However, not understanding something never stopped me from talking about it before, so here goes. I do not like the idea of "spooky action at a distance" proposed by more famous physicists than myself. It is probably my lack of imagination but I can envision no undetectable mechanism for it. The alternative, is the idea of some kind of aether, one rejected by Einstein and most others, that connects everything. My bet is with Mr. Hawking and having to come up with a new paradigm. Imho things should become less complex the smaller we go rather than more.

The sideshow of "the world will end" seems far more widespread among people with no understanding of science than among scientists. Videos like sillygirl, er I mean lonelygirl. seem to not take into account much the fact that such a thing will violate nearly every law of physics ever observed.

Its a combination telephone and coffee grinder, grind your coffee while talking on the phone. Seriously, it does look like a telephone with a spring loaded generator but it bothers me that there is no ear piece, plus I cant imagine what the white button is for except to lock the handle into place. If the handle points down I would say its a telephone, if not it looks like a grinder or juicer to me.

The best solution is not to produce carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, etc in the first place. While hybrids and electric cars may help some, you still have to power them with something and you will still kill over 40,000 people a year, have traffic jams, high infrastructure costs, etc. I am in the process of writting extensively about automating Americas road/rail system and powering it with solar and wind energy. Anyone is welcome to check it out and comment at npts2020.blogspot.com.

The question is nearly entirely dependant on whether the wind resistance is the same for both riders. At between 17-18 mph about 70% of the energy required to maintain speed is overcoming wind resistance, that increases to about 90% at around 25mph. Surely the riders under conjecture would go even faster, making wind resistance an even bigger factor. It seems to me that a heavier rider has more potential and will have a higher terminal speed than a lighter rider, therefore going faster, if all other things are equal.

I didnt come here for politics, unfortunately, the sciences and applications I envision for a national personal transit system are very tied up in politics. Most of what I have seen on that thread is a sidebar to my effort so I cant really complain about not being able to post there. It just seems there ought to be a less exclusive way of doing it. Btw, I agree with the resoning 100%.

It is possible that space is "nothingness" simply from our inability to percieve it. Dont forget that far more of our universe is unknown than known. One of my favorite subjects in this vein is how does gravity or magnetism seemingly work at a distance with nothing but a "field" in between. What is the exact mechanism of that field? Is it instantaneous or does it have a speed like light?

Scientific American claims that the area required for photovoltaic solar panels to produce 50% of our projected energy needs in the year 2050 is about 30,000 square miles of southwestern desert, or about the same amount of land covered by roads in America. Clearly this will not solve all of our problems but it would help tremendously. I have proposed on another thread to automate our transportation system and power it with solar and wind. One thing that is of great interest to me is,how would such a gargantuan project affect the price of solar panels and wind generators? For more discussion of this system I would encourage you to visit my national personal transit blog at npts2020.blogspot.com.

I dont like the idea of neverending expansion. If the universe is ever expanding, what occupied whatever there was before our universe got there? Is there truly a state of nothingness or is it just our lack of ability to percieve what is in "space" (and is there any difference)? I guess one could concievably create "space" from energy (matter included) to conserve the idea that you cant create something from nothing or destroy something without ending up with the constituent pieces but exactly what is the nature of that so-called space? In my humble non-scientific opinion this problem is tied into where the conjectured majority of the universe lies, or the nature of dark energy. At any rate the time scale you are talking about is many orders of magnitude greater than the estimated current age of universe.

Firstly, about the link problem, the correct url is npts2020.blogspot.com, the address I gave is where you go to get the blogger url, sorry about that. Your first statement about making a profit, is true, but I disagree that it is the reason an automated system wont happen. The current system is becoming an albatross that nobody wants to pay for, whereas the system I envision will pay for itself over time and become self-supporting. As more and more citizens realize they cant afford to use the highways, clamoring for change will increase even more. Even now a lot of thoughtful people are calling for major changes in American infrastructure, although specifics are usually few and far between. The goal of my efforts is to provide a reasonable plan to bring our transportation system into the 21st century. There are many obstacles, to be sure, but I do not share your pessimism about upgrading. Americans are ready for change and I believe that if shown a practical way of proceeding and how it will make their lives better, most will support said change. It may well take support of 80% of Americans to get it done, since the federal government is the only entity that could possibly take on the task. However, if I didn't at least try I would feel like I was the same nattering nabob as many of those seen throughout the blogosphere, all criticism and no ideas of their own (do not think this refers to you). You could well be correct about this never happening, but I was aware when I first wrote publicly the scale and complexity of the whole thing. We live in a complex world that will require large scale solutions for many things, this is my attempt at contributing to those solutions, even if the Chinese or Japanese or somebody else does it first. The problem that is almost as large as actually building the system, is making people aware that there is a good solution to unnecessarily using oil to produce the 1/4 of our energy that is transportation and to killing over 40,000 people every year on the highways. Once that happens, the will to begin is there. Thank you for your comments.

Our transportation system in America is among the best ever constructed by humans but it is fast becoming antiquated for two reasons. The first, and most obvious reason is that the way vehicles are powered is not sustainable. The second reason is that our current system is trying to integrate 20th century technology into a 19th century or older infrastructure. The end result is that over 1/4 of our national energy production goes to transportation and 40,000 people die every year, with hundreds of thousands more injured. I am proposing to automate our road/rail system and power it with wind and solar energy. Such a system should be faster, safer, greener, more efficient, more convenient and cheaper than todays. All of the technology required to do this exists today so I am interested in peoples ideas about the specifics of making such a system reality. I have been writing extensively about this topic at npts2020.blogger.com.