|
Post by griffman on Feb 15, 2007 18:28:03 GMT -5
Yes, but I'm sure you could google them, I only know of the frog video. I know you were kidding (especially since you said you were ) but I know there are probably some people out there that aren't going to read my entire post... and the frog is sorta fun
|
|
|
Post by Ari’laftia on Feb 16, 2007 8:22:54 GMT -5
I checked out the site that hosted the frog, and they also have the floating water and grasshopper/cricket. Its bugging me, I know I say a whole show on it on the science channel but I cant pull up the name of it. hmm... anyway, Its really cool the nifty things you can do with magnets (Please forgive all my technical jargon above)
|
|
|
Post by AREA666 on Feb 16, 2007 19:05:58 GMT -5
So to finally make a reply, the whole thing about the universe spining was an error on my part. I should have said the galaxy, but the way the actual texts are worded they say universe, since that is all that was known at the time of course being thousands of years ago. For the idea to work though you wont apply an actual time frame to how long a planet takes to make its journey. You cant do it for the idea to work since you would be applying time to it as it exits for us.
once you stated to move into the black holes, I am lost. Where did blackholes come into play with time travel, or is it just some sort of semi-related tangent? Only thing I can think of is it has to do with the Theory of Relativity somewhere, but since I have not gotten to it in physics class yet I can only speculate, although even then I do not know why one would be needed, unless the equation calls for massive amounts of gravity, if black holes even produce tons of gravity since we only think they do and have never even studied one, and according to that one article Hal put up they may not even exist.
Also with your equations I am not sure if you actually calculated them in what you did, or if you were copying them from notes but there is an error in how you wrote the gravitational constant. It should be a base 10, not e. There is a huge difference since e is only about 2.71. I could be wrong, but I did check to make sure and all places I went had a base 10 as I had thought, but you could be learning all this stuff some new way, and from what you wrote in that post it seems to be more advance by a good margin then what I am doing in my physics class, but then again mine is just an intro level one. Or maybe the base e means something different in physics then it does in a purely mathematical setting.
|
|
|
Post by griffman on Feb 17, 2007 13:12:00 GMT -5
Sorry to have confused you there. When I do my homework I have to input my answers into a form online, and the way the form takes scientific notation is E-5 for *10^-5. I just got lazy and left it as a lower case e, in which case would be the base number for the natural log, and that's not what I meant it to be. When I said 'e' anywhere in the post in between numbers 'e' is short for scientific notation. I was talking about black holes because aule had said something about a dark hole and I just assumed he was talking about a black hole. He could have meant it in a different way, but that's the way I took it. Also, I was talking about black holes because they seem to be close to the only way we can travel as quickly as required to break the speed of light. The extreme amount of gravity in combination with the extreme force created by magnetic and electric fields could push your speed way faster than light. You would just have to be able to control what is going on, which would be the really hard part of it. Black holes, as you probably already know have strong enough gravity to attract light, which is virtually massless, and not allowing it to escape. I personally do not believe time travel is possible. I believe that if we ever exceed the speed of light that we would be able to travel very quickly to wherever we are going, but I don't believe that would transport us to a different time period. As far as other dimensions go, I guess I can't really grasp the idea of having something not in an xyz plane. Anything that is tangible right now can be drawn in a plane that way. I realize wikipedia is not a great source, but here is the link to a fourth dimension idea: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimensionYou may have to copy and paste this to get to it, or just go to wikipedia.org and search fourth dimension. If you look at the vectors coming from the cube in the top left corner, they are still in the xyz plane. They each have an x-, y- and z- component, and then after each of those are used up there can't be any components left over. If anyone, especially whoever that was that had said there are 12 (or 14, don't remember...) dimensions, can explain it to me I'd be very grateful.
|
|
|
Post by griffman on Feb 17, 2007 16:09:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AREA666 on Feb 21, 2007 19:21:47 GMT -5
I always seem to forget that you can use E to simlify scientific notation. I think the only time I have ever used it that was is in electronics, but math was always 10^x, probably to keep from being confused with natural logs. At any rate I am done with all those things anyway and only have to worry about applied math now, so I will see if it crops up anywhere again. Seeing as how you know more then I do on the actual theories of time travel, where I only make up my own, what does the speed of light have to do with the travel anyway? I fail to see why it is assumed that there is the possibility of something magical happening at good old (roughtly) 300 million meters per second and above, or even why it is claimed to be near impossible to reach that speed. I remember reading back in like 98 or so in a Discovery magazine an article on particle acceleratiors that shot two particles, not sure of what anymore, at near the speed of light and one of them had a barrier in the way. While you would think that the one with the barrier would be slowed, or stopped, it actually ended up basically ignoring the barrier and just appearing on the other side. When the speed was calculated for such an act to occur it was found that the particle would have needed to exceed the speed of light, especially since it finnished the course before the other paticle with no barrier did. In my own little theories I always thought that it would be simple to reach whatever speed you wanted in space, if you had enough resources, so maybe you can tell me if I am just crazy. Basically I think of how say you are on a plane and you throw a ball inside of it. Since the ball is already going the speed of the plane, when you throw it then it is going that much faster. I know it would not work outside due to air resistance, but with the frictionless space I figure you would just be able to make some huge rocket that would have another inside it, and so on with each one adding to the speed of the last, kind of like little toys that have a smaller version of their shape inside them, down to like 10 layers. I always have liked blackholes though, the whole light thing has always interested me. It is hard to think of light as being something that can be manipulated in that way, but I also remember reading an article on scientists cooling a beam of light to a few degrees above absolute zero, so it was moving at like a mile per hour or so. I think that would have been really neat to see. I think you idea of things needing to exist in our plane of existance follows to my infinite space, so again while time travel would not be needed in it, you could still feel like you were traveling. Looking at that wiki page I think I am in the same boat as you since I do not see a 4th, or above dimension. If you watch the animations, which are really neat by the way and I saved them, it reminds me of those toy pickle things that are hard to hold on to. To explain the 4th dimension though I like the way it is explained in the Back To The Future 3 movie, although it might not even been a real one. But at the end of the movie when Marty is being pushed by the train he is freaking out that he will fall off the end of the track since he is not thinking that at a later point in the time the actual track will be there. I cant seem to make that fit for the shapes on the page though, so it might be just a hollywood idea. I will have to try to watch that video on the second link you sent to see if it answers anything I do not know, but it is being slow right now. Also I think it was rendclaw who wrote something on the 14 dimensions theory, so you should ask him if you can find the post about it.
Oh, and to keep with the unrelated things, with the magnetic fields with the floating things, does there have to be two forces present in close proximity to do that cancelling one another, or could it be used to say counter the magnetic pull of the Earth and thus work anywhere? I am just curious since I have always wanted a hover board, from Back To The Future again, and it seems like that technology could be used for it.
|
|
|
Post by griffman on Feb 21, 2007 19:39:19 GMT -5
Just to answer your last though, as I am currently writing a research paper and don't have much time.... The force of gravity is all around us. Everything has a gravitational pull, no matter how weak. In order to use magnetism and electricity to float all you would have to do is set the force of the magnet/electricity equal to the force of gravity. Since the force of gravity will be counteracted, the normal force (the force friction is calculated from) will be negated, leaving you with just the two forces equal to each other. You would have to come up with a strong enough electric or magnetic field in order to overcome the force of gravity.
I'll use me as an example (oh geez here I go... I guess the research paper will be put off a little bit). I weigh 180 lbs, or 81.45 kg. The force exerted on my body due to gravity is F= ma, or F= 81.45 kg*9.81N/kg (or m/s^2). F = 799 N. I would have to produce a force of 799 N in the opposite direction of gravity, or up.
Hrm.. I need a diagram. Looks like this will have to wait sorry AREA, I need to finish up the paper then do a little physics hw before I can do the drawing.
|
|
|
Post by AREA666 on Feb 21, 2007 19:48:28 GMT -5
Dont worry about having to go to in depth. We are dealing with Newtons Laws in my class right now actually, so the F=ma equation I am already aware of and using. The magnetic stuff we are not dealing with and the only magnetic stuff I deal with is what I learn from others since my class seems to be a few hundred times more basic then your class. I am also aware of the force of gravity on Earth, so if you have some fun equations to calculate how big of a machine would be needed to create the opposing force that would be good, or atleast how strong of a magnetic field would be. Actually I guess making a drawing might be best since then other people who have no idea what you, and to a much lesser extent me are talking about, can understand. And on another note how is it that you can exchange the units of gravity like you did? We only use the m/sec^2, and even at that we are so lame as to round it to 10, but that is basic intro level stuff for you.
|
|
|
Post by griffman on Feb 21, 2007 20:16:31 GMT -5
Those units actually come from the F = G m1m2/R^2 equation I believe. I just kind of always have used those units, and never really questioned it. either way, kg*m/s^2 is a Newton too...
|
|
|
Post by AREA666 on Feb 21, 2007 20:36:28 GMT -5
hhhhmmm, I can sort of see how it might be exchange able then. I tried to work it out on paper. We never use the expanded Newton units, or atleast yet, and have only been shown them once for where they come from. But if I try to do the math I figure if you were to start with just m/sec^2 and mulitply that by kg then you would arive at a Newton of course, so that makes sense, but if you already have a Newton and multiply with a mass again, then you would end up with (kg^2*(kg*m))/sec^2. I am not to good at doing abstract math that way though when there are no numbers, but I think it is just a simple one like that, so the end result would not be in Newtons, unless there is some cancelling out I am not doing since my brain is not working to well right now, and physics is not my forte to begin with. Oh well though, I figure if I play around with your other equation there, or expanding out N/kg to make horrible fractions over a fraction I could probably see what is cancelling and all that, but I think I will just not worry about it for now and let the universe continue its path and my tangent here end.
|
|
|
Post by griffman on Feb 21, 2007 20:42:29 GMT -5
When I get back from the library I will have to dig through my old physics notes to see if I can show you the math behind deriving those units. It may have just been a sort of "slang" way of writing the units in order for us to remember that when using Newton's law that you had to be multiplying the acceleration by the mass in kilograms. When working with F=ma I had always used a's units to be N/kg, even if they were given to me in m/s^2.. and it always works out.
|
|
|
Post by beckyh on Feb 21, 2007 20:45:33 GMT -5
On a totally side note, if I had to go back in time now, I'd become friends with Anna Nicole so I could claim paternity on her baby too.
Oh and if you haven't noticed this so-called "library" that Griff mentioned is where we are "studying" aka posting stuff on the forum.
|
|
|
Post by AREA666 on Feb 21, 2007 20:46:24 GMT -5
Yeah, I can see how it would work that way, since you dont have to worry really about what is being said, so long as you know what the final units shoudl be. Like my math teacher last semester would use "coat hanger" as a unit for things that would not really matter like that so long as you knew what to put at the end. Sometimes it is just fun to know where things come from. At any rate though, you should probably do homework now instead of answering my silly questions.
|
|
|
Post by AREA666 on Feb 23, 2007 16:14:55 GMT -5
So I watched that little 10 dimension video, and frankly I dont think I like it much. I did like how they explained the folding of a 2 dimensional object to a 3rd one to explain the layers above, but once they started to put infinity into things I dont like how they went. I think it was in the 7th dimension they started doing it where they would have one starting point the ends in an infinite number of possible realities. That right there does not work since assigning a starting point like that defeats infinity. So the levels above that where they talked about groups of infinite realities being able to fold and jump between just does not seem to logically make sense. The final 10th dimension they talked about though sounds exactly like my own ideas on everythign existing on one plane, but I dont see why it can not happen in one. They also said that would be as high as it can be to go, but I do not think it would end there. In my philosophy class we just did something that was similar. It was with Genus and Species. Basically a Genus is the large start group, and you would work your way down to a species. So say you choose a start group of animal. You could go lower on the chain and get to a branch of rational, or irrational. Then under rational you could put man, and then under man you could put like Joe. Going down to a specific like that is the easy part, but going the other way causes a problem. Back at animal you could go above it to say material object. So now animal is a species, and the genus is the material object. But you dont stop there, you go above material object to something that we as humans dont have a name for. You need to do that in order to explain the relationship between the layer below it. And then that new highest layer will need another layer above to explain its relation to the one below, and so on for infinity. It branches out just like the dimensions thing did, except that it of course would never stop. So I think that a similar case would happen with that dimensional thing if they explained it like they did. They kept adding on a dimension that would explain the relationship between the lower ones. By them throwing in infinity seems like a way to make things simply end. My problem with it is that they are taking a limited amount, such as the big bang, and then claiming an infinite number of results would exist, and for all I know on infinity that does not seem possible. With the whole idea of folding though actually it would seem to support my infinite things existing on one plane again. I always said you could "time travel" in the way that you would just have to find the point to goto that fits for what you want. In order to do that you would need to somehow bridge the gap between the two points, and the folding would seem to be a solution. It seems very reminiscent of the Event Horizon movie that had the ship which could fold two points in space together so the distance between them was zero. Of course in the movie that was a bad thing since doing that makes it so you travel through literal Hell, but that is movies for you.
|
|