Zolar V

i actually would have to disagree with that, i think we do take alot of the scientific theories we have on faith, expecially with the ones that pertain to such tiny things where we cant directly measure them or observe their actions. for example, the first atomic model was somethings like a ball of electrons not moving but floating above the nucleus.. or something like that.. and another example would be a geocentric universe, a Flat Earth, and many others that were thought to be true. and for the sake of argument.. we were technecly right on "geocentric universe and flat earth", via alternate dimensions personally, i dont think the atomic model is as accurate as it could be. But then agian i unfortunatly have not undergone formal college level classes on the subject .

hmm i was actually thinking that maybe by the process of gravity pulling the atoms to a central point that Fission was occuring to larger particles leaving bare protons and electrons "floating" around but being drawn to the central core where they undergo fission to form hydrogen... possibly interacting with cosimic radiation at some level. but i was also thinking that our atomic model might be slightly wrong. i would think that an electron could be thought of more like a blister on a ball rather than a floating object. and it gets pulled around by the opposite side of the ball being that this side is positive and the side the blister is on is neg. there could be a buffer zone between the blister and the rest of the ball were it is neutral in its charge.. thinking this way would allow there to be a more "elementary" particle as it would simply be a proton but proving that would be tant amount to blasphemy to the scientific world anyways, and most likely impossible.. also for the first one it begs to question what about the beginning where there wernt bigger particles formed yet...

at somepoint could you get your lighter fluid to solidify under pressure?

In a Fusion Reaction on let’s say a star, the fusion is supposed to be between 2 hydrogen elements creating helium. But what if in the fusion reaction there were a more elementary particles causing the fusion first forming hydrogen then proceeding to heavier elements? It’s kind of a long shot I know, but if it were true it would advance fusion research. The reason why I ask this is because I have noticed that all the fusion reactions use Hydrogen (isotopes) at extremely high temperatures to initiate the fusion. But if you have a lesser particle it may not require such high energy systems it would yield a much higher ratio of energy produced to energy consumed. Not really sure where to post this...

huh you know i just did this same idea post like a few weeks ago, http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45692 and i got a few ideas of my own. by 'few' i meant one............

" Studies show that if a cat falls off the seventh floor of a building it has about thirty percent less chance of surviving ...Studies show that if a cat falls off the seventh floor of a building it has about thirty percent less chance of surviving than a cat that falls off the twentieth floor. It supposedly takes about eight floors for the cat to realize what is occurring, relax and correct itself." so they threw some test cats off of a building multiple times?????? http://federalbureauofmiscellaneousi...om/node?page=3

i think its funny how their logo looks like a globe.

i would like to see the actual calculations and math proving what you say. just spewing crude terms without defining them proves nothing. and if you can back your theories up with calculations and solutions then, they should be cross referenced and additional references should be obtained from outside sources. such as a reference of do magnetic holes exits, and papers on the expected effects on the environment surely if this was such a large concept of death then someone would already have done some calculations on it.

i would think that if you could get passed the immunosuppressents then your brain could actually from connections. and if it can form thos connections it then can use the added braincells to do whatever it wants. it might be able to access the memories of the other brain but i would doubt it. if it could then i would say that it would be able to decipher them aswell. i think the brain is much more capeable than what we make it to be. for instance i think that if we were to add a microchip in the spine that is connected to the spinal cord. and the chip to a new limb. that our brain would be able to learn how to use it. the reason why i say that would be because of "phantom limb syndrome" if our brain can decide that it has a limb and therefore do things with it, then it can also learn new things.

damn.

can a living organism assimilate another organisms brain? like i mean if you were to drill a hole in your skull then add grey matter from a organism. could your body assimilate it, assuming no infection or regection.

you know when i originally said we could map and understand the brain in a few years if we were not constrained by ethics or budget/maning, this is exactly what i meant, "followsreverse-engineer the mammalian brain, in order to understand brain function and dysfunction through detailed simulations. " FROM PROJECT BLUE BRAIN. now taking their rat tests and replacing it with humans via no ethical restraints, we would significantly reduce the time factor. +if we had gross funding and maning, we would have already made ai imho

i agree

ok, lets all just start fresh. here i am going to show you through the biology of the human brain that you cannot just think of something without any sort of base or foundation to that thought. in the brain all thought is composed of neurons that fire in a specific pattern to create your thought. EG the word flower, it is simply a bunch of neurons fireing to produce the picture of a flower along with any sort of information you have stored that has been associated with it. now if you were to come up with some new thought without any base then what you get is a bunch of neurons fireing randomly that you cannot dissern any sort of pattern or anything from it. aka you cant think it, literally. so therefore every thought has to have some preformed base, from somewhere. aka. that preformed basis is my "logical basis" EG. when you were 2 you learned that red is red. so when your 40 you discover that through "hydroponics" you can sustain plant growth by giving it its basic nutrients and water through any sort of medium you decide. you soon find out that the reason why you thought of this had something to do with the red being red. when you learn something new you are really just building on to what you already know. yes, here is where you insert "welll then how did mankind discover language and then teach it?" My answer "they learned it, were steering away form creationism atm, from their observations of animals and how they could commmunicate" phi, quoting 2 seperate quotes and taking them out of context is asinine.

case and point "hydroponics" honestly could someone actually not know that plants can live in an area with out dirt? obviously you did not get the metaphore

when i said "follows a logical basis" I obviously was pointing to the fact that any intuition must start at a logical base. Imagine dirt being the logical basis and a flower being intuition. You cant have a flower without dirt. Without a foundation intuition just doesn't happen.

if you would like to see some real intuitive thinking that follows a logical basis, just like einstein, look at my posts. (seriously) "is the speed of light really constant" and "Deep space spacecraft" and the one about time in the relativity forum , + probably others. also, hence my quote. personally i believe that einstein even when making his theories of relativity still wondered about the speed of light really being constant.

understanding the brain could be accomplished in a few years provided that it had adequate funding and a lot of researchers and processing power. just like how we discover what genes do what in the genome project, we could map the complexities of the human brain by testing each part(large scale) one by one. then once we have a rudimentary understanding of the large scale parts go into each part of the brain and test how the parts on the inside of the brain react to each other, then of course test how they interact with other parts. in essence its much like designing a program,building,essay, you start with your superstructure then build in substructures.

I think what he is asking is an engineering problem not a computer science. What i assertain from the post, he is wondering how should we start exploring AI and how it is going to be Engineered i think your wrong, it is fully in our scope of understanding that the brain can be mapped and understood easily within the next few years. The only reason why we have not mapped the brain yet is because of the current laws and past laws making it unlawfull to do many of the things needed to map a human brain. + its underfunded.

I am flattered that you would think that i am a writer, but i am not. The reason why i ask these questions is because i am a visionary, i ponder what other people pass off as pure fantasy or irrelivent. It is just my nature. Im sorry that my questions were not succinct enough but i was trying to be general to allow people to put thier own ideas in without any friction to the original question. I however have plenty of ideas and explanations to answer each of the questions. I will start with taking your ideas, ophiolite, and giving them a reason why they may be right or wrong. "1. the absence of any need to streemline the vessel" In my opinion i would say that is false, if you were to travel through space you would encounter many different sizes of particles that could damage the ship if it were not streemlined. Of course it not the same type of streemline that would be used for reducing the μ here on earth. It would be used to negate any friction caused by the massive amount of particle debries in the system. So i would say that yes it is streemlined. "4. The character of deep space the craft is travelling through. (Probably a minor point, but it might be relevant.)" I would say that the character of deep space would have a more significant impact of ship design then what you might think. The reason for this is, if you were flying through a nebula or some sort of gasseous cloud, could those gasses have a detrimental effect on the hull of the ship. I you were flying to a system that has 100-1000 stars extreemly close by, the radiation may have a greater impact on the hull as well. I would site something about the 100-1000 but i cant remeber where i saw it. Apparently there is a system in which about 1000 stars are extreemly close to each other. even a few stars that orbit other stars. As for the space station. The reason why i asked this question is because if a ship were to dock on to a station in any other way that would inhibit free movement when detached, I.E like a nasa rocket sitting on a platform, when the ship goes to take off its thrust generated would nock the station off course via "every action has an equal and oposite reaction" Newtons 3rd? law of motion. So i would imagine that the space stations way of handling a ship or multiple ships would be either a kind of ring-tube shape attached to the station that would allow the ship to enter the tube, attach to a walkway, and allow for repairs if needed to the ship. Ss an addon to the space station question. what would the "tower controls" be, as a guy from the airforce i know just how hellish tower is, and i personally dont do that, i fly on the plane . so i would think that if the station was heavily trafficed there might be some sort of computer program designating which ship goes were, or even taking controll of the ship at a certian distance from the station to park it were it wants. Now for the "gps" system. I was more thinking that if there were deepspace crafts flying about that one would need a better sense of intergalactic direction IE a compass for space. I initially was thinking that the best sort of refrence for the craft would not be the local stars but rather it be refrenced to earth. but after much thought earth might not be the most suitable choice. It may be refrenced to whatever solar system has the largest economical empire. What i mean by this is that, why would a ship be refrenced to earth or to a earth imperium if earths imperium was dying. Lets take a look at 100 ad, in the time of the Romans all of the "present" maps were drawn with refrence to Rome, being as it was the capital of the empire. After the Roman empire fell, rome was no longer the refrence of the maps, once countries had established themselves i believe the next refrence would have been France.. until France went bankrupt and the argonauts killed the ruling monarchy, after that it was Great Brittan. Currently it is America i do believe. Now we progress to the weapon systems. If there was 1 deepspace craft flying and a space station that it could dock to, then why arnt their more. If ther are more ships flying about then how many would be pirates or how many would belong to another civilization that you may be at war with. also on side note, what about the immensity of the galaxy and the possiblility of organisms that may not be conscious but act like wild animals. so that being said, the ship needs to be armed with one or many weapons that both use material ammo and dont use material ammo. i would think that (seriously) a ship in space would have Laser weapon systems, extreemly large Laser weapon systems. you could have these weapons without the effect of overheating by simply heatsinking it to the skin of the craft and allowing space to cool it down. or build the system entirely on the outside of the craft but with adequate shielding for radiation and micro metoers. imagine basicly a cannon on a 16 c. galleon, its on the deck. of course large lasers would require large amounts of power, and if you were in some area of space were there is literally nothing then the only power system would be one that you carry with you. Power systems. If our said ship was on a extended journey through space on some mission, possibly catalouging planets and systems for mineable resources and habitability with regards to tereforming, it would require on onboard power system capeable of extreem longevity. in my opinion only nuclear fission, or possibly fusion, would be a possible solution. i would think that along with these systems you could have other forms of power, stored in different battery cells, such as solar power, and may be some sort of system that could capture consmic rays and put them to use.

If we had deepspace spacecraft what would they look like, what would they have for purpulsion and why. how large would they be, if they were to connect to some sort of space station how would they and why. what type of refrence system would they have for navigation, as in where would they refrence themselves to. what types of weapon systems would they have. how would they target and how would they work when answering these please keep in mind actual physics and real solutions. but also dont leave out theoretical physics or theories that have yet to be proven such as "folding of spacetime for "warp drives"" but obviously keep out stuff like magic and imaginary stuff.

wow this is an interesting concept, honestly iv never really thought about it. that is that space is finite or that there may be multiple BB's. in my opinion if there were multiple bb's then there would have to be some sort of new governing force behind all of the forces inside a bb and after the event. but what of time? if there were multiple bb's then is it possible that instead of spacetime there could be a seperate entity that is similar to time but is unbound by the forces inside a bb? what about outside of a bb? what types of "matter" are outside of a bb? would there be a nothingness outside of the singularity or would it be similar to a universe with lots of matter, antimatter, Electromagnetic waves, and forces yet unknown? as for finite space, i always thought of it as a sphere except inverted where instead of the defined Edge on the outer side of the sphere. you would have some point in the center that is an edge of some sort. ma bad.. wrong account to post with

Hmm, those articles were wonderful. I just realized that yes the speed of light is constant and this is simply because it is the same thing as any other electromagentic wave. for instance the speed at which a 40 hz wave propegates is pretty simple to calculate and so the speed of another electromagentic wave ie. light is equally calculateable. but this leaves me to a new assumption, that is that there could theoretically be a electromagentic wave that does travel faster than the speed of light. however this wave can still travel between energy states of speeds greater or less than the speed of light. of course no wave has been MEASURED yet but they may be there. honestly it would make sense that there were waveforms that have a higher energy value than the speed of light. to find them would be similar to finding elementary particles of the atom after the atom ( proton neutron electron) was declared the smalled particle and cannot be deduced.

is the speed of light really constant or can it change based upon where the observer is with respect to velocity. i remeber einstein saying(in his journals) something about that if you aproach the speed of light, the light you see is doesnt appear to be slowing down but rather still going the speed of light faster than you. Thus the speed of light would increase to compensate for the observer. if light acts as a particle in a non vacuum environment then it could be affected by the particles in the environment, changing the speed of light just like everything els. if this is true then how can we accuratly measure the speed of light from anything as these measurements would be obscured by the interference of the environment. even if light acts as a wave or a partial wave/particle then it could still interact with the environment it is in. if light is measured in a vacuum is that really the proper measurement of the speed of light as it is not affected by common environmental variables. it would be like saying i can run 10000000 miles an hour but this is not the case since i am human and the environment affects and dictates my speed.

i think you are forgetting that even in our universe or dimension there can be a particle that exist in two places at once, and that a particle can inhabit the smae space as another particle. if you take this concept and apply it to your door example then you could have your people pass throught the door without there being a need to have or use time. you could still have motion based on the above principle were a particle can exist in two places at once i think it would work something like this A= particle ---= space ----(A)-------(A)---------------- ---------------(A)---------------- ----------------(A)------(A)------ if this doesnt dissuade you from accepting the possiblility of there being a dimension without time then atlest look at the concept from an objective and scientific stand point. And realize that the possiblity of there being a dimension that is parrallel to ours but does not have time.