People in forum gangs don't always recognise that they are in one, so it might be worth letting them know how you feel through PMs. We all need to try to be fair to everyone, but it's difficult to keep track of how we actually come across while at the same time letting our rival ideas do battle with each other. I find such messages useful and welcome them.
You should be pleased Box, there are some people of good imagination answering you here. Then there are logic naturally. Logic is defined by your limits. When you set natural numbers as something complementary to your definitions of 'nothing' you make it more complicated than it needs to be. On the other tentacle you make it new :) and make people consider what you might mean by it. That's one of the things that makes TNS a place to have fun on.
Don't worry Box, use your imagination and be free.
We live a while, then we die. And that :) goes for all of us.
So be free.
I haven't looked the file up or followed the link, but I wondered if that particular claim might be related to the idea that "stationary" things are "travelling" through the time dimension at c.
« Last post by RD on 25/04/2015 18:09:56 »
It needn't be a balloon. A steel can will do quite nicely, and it doesn't need to be very deep under the ocean: the domestic gas supply pressure is only a meter of water gauge or less. The deeper it is, the more efficient, but large steel cans are very cheap and easy to make.
Scottish Scientist was suggesting storing the hydrogen at depth (~100m)
Deeper seas are better because the water pressure is proportional to the depth allowing the hydrogen to be compressed more densely, so that more hydrogen and more energy can be stored in an inflatable gas-bag.
Building a heavy-duty "gasometer" made of steel, on the sea-floor, 100m below the surface of the salty-sea, sounds very-expensive and impractical to me : It will be bigger than a military submarine , and they cost over a billion dollars each.
« Last post by David Cooper on 25/04/2015 18:06:54 »
You're restating the same argument we went over before, and this time, you are phrasing it in a way that sounds like the data "disproves" my theory of aether/time.
I'm simply trying to get you to provide a rough figure on how much a clock will slow in deep space compared with one that's running faster in "middle space". What I want to see if whether it's worth trying to understand your theory in depth or if it is already disproven by the lack of optical effects in the sky of the kind that would show up if you require a significant slowing.
Again, our existing data shows that time passes slower in "near space," as in a clock in a moving airplane, ...
Clocks run slower when moved fast at the same altitude regardless of which altitude you choose.
...and time passes faster in what I say is "middle space," where a moving GPS satellite travels.
Time passes faster as you go to higher altitude, and this effect is stronger than the one that causes slowing due to speed of travel. You still don't appear to be separating out the two effects.
-As I've covered already, I claim that "true outer" space would be where the earth's magnetic field would not exert its influence on the clocks in a moving vehicle, and that although no experiments have been done with clocks that far out as yet, time would run slower there, due to the absence of the magnetic field.
Are you aware that there are other planets and moons in the solar system with different strengths of magnetic field which have had atomic clocks taken to them and which have not showed the magnetic field to have any impact on the passage of time? Are you aware of magnetars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar):-
"These magnetic fields are hundreds of millions of times stronger than any man-made magnet, and quadrillions of times more powerful than the field surrounding Earth."
Do we see weird optical effects around them because of their extreme magnetic fields? If your idea of time being slowed doesn't involve light being slowed too, you aren't describing a slowing of time but a slowing of some kinds of clock while other clocks (light clocks) in the same locations would not be slowed with them. If you really are trying to say that time is slowed, then you have to have it slow light down as well, and if you do that you should get optical effects if this slowing is anything other than trivial. That's why I'd like to hear a few figures on how much slowing you predict there to be, because that slowing will be directly proportional to a slowing in the speed of light. If you can't provide such basic information, no one will ever invest a penny into testing your theory.
« Last post by jccc on 25/04/2015 17:53:26 »
Sometimes I feel 'TheBox' really is 'Jccc'. Wonder if that's really the case.
« Last post by jeffreyH on 25/04/2015 17:42:03 »
I don't have too much time at the moment to give a full response but C is the option that describes what I believe is the case. This relates to the Kerr metric and the profile of the ergosphere. You cannot relate this to the Schwarzschild metric as it has no angular momentum associated with it.
« Last post by Cosmo on 25/04/2015 17:39:05 »
The Neutron is absolutely critical to Nuclear binding - two protons repel without a neutron. Except in the case of hydrogen and Helium there needs to be at least as many Neutrons as protons to form a stable nucleus. A plot of Z (# of Protons) vs N (number of neutrons) for stable elements diverges from the straight line N = Z The heavier the nucleus, the greater the divergence. For the light elements, the most stable configurations tend to have equal numbers of protons and neutrons
« Last post by yor_on on 25/04/2015 17:38:56 »
The point, to me then, with this last proposition is that it it doesn't simplify anything. It doesn't matter how we want to define superluminal motion if we have no standard for it, and we don't. We have a standard for 'c' though, that works in all experiments. that doesn't state that this idea must be wrong. It seems more a matter of how one expect, or think, 'it' works, than how 'it' might be to me.
and yes, I do use experiments, not theory. You don't have a experiment proving your point? then you redefine it.
(And to be clear, I do question motion too, in that you're not alone. And if you do that all standards for what it means change. But 'useful' information must still be transfered at 'c' to me. And what happens outside the limits is of no use to us normally, although QM may open some windows of application to us.)
© 2000–2013 The Naked Scientists®
The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.