here we go again

[Face Kicker]

until we have a warp drive, something that far away (600 light years) is of no consequence. well, unless we create some type of massive spaceship (an ARK) that can eventually travel that far over many many many many lifetimes.

[Guest]

until we have a warp drive, something that far away (600 light years) is of no consequence. well, unless we create some type of massive spaceship (an ARK) that can eventually travel that far over many many many many lifetimes.

 

Hence why we have the big bad black hole machine under Switzerland, the principle of folding space/time with a form of wormhole could yet be extrapolated from the Hadron Collider one day. Though I'm a little rusty on my theoretical particle physics I'm sure that's the best hope for post lightspeed travel

[Face Kicker]

Hence why we have the big bad black hole machine under Switzerland, the principle of folding space/time with a form of wormhole could yet be extrapolated from the Hadron Collider one day. Though I'm a little rusty on my theoretical particle physics I'm sure that's the best hope for post lightspeed travel

 

 

god bless the swiss for letting them build that thing under them. and for their cheese, of course.

[Guest]

Well obviously for the cheese, but if things do go slightly tits up then there is a teeny tiny possibility that whilst spinning those pesky protons in the giant race track it could open a black hole that will destroy the planet. If it was that then its more god damn the swiss for letting them build it lol

 

You seem fairly knowledgeable on this stuff FK... do you think the dimensions theory is plausible (string theory)?

[Grasman]

So far, Super-string theory is the most plausible theory to date IMO.

 

Just the fact of something popping into existence from "nothing" (proved manipulating Quarks within atoms),, ergo "nothing" is something,, namely "strings".

 

Where there are no physical quarks within the core of the Atom, the Atom becomes very unstable, until a pair of quarks appears out of the "nothing", a quark and an anti-quark.

 

This leads me to believe that in the never-ending "emptiness" of space outside our universe, (the emptiness being very unstable) that there are constant "Big Bangs" in the "emptiness",, Big bangs that pop into existence out of "nothing"

 

One of the biggest challenges in "conventional Astro physics" is the (reasonable) fact that after 13 billion years, our universe is still expanding,, The problem is that the energy required to create or Universe is "infinite", according to our calculation, (our calculations all deliver "infinity" as the answer, basically can't calculate the energy needed to deliver the Big Bang), but for the Universe to be able to expand for this phenomenally long time, it requires almost zero energy,, hence these two things don't add up at all using our conventional physics.

 

But, if you "zoom out" into the nothing,, zoom way beyond our universe, to a point where our universe appears as small as our own planet is in the universe,, then you realize that on the grand scale of the "nothing" the energy required for the big bang is almost nothing, hence, allowing it to expand for this extraordinary long time.

 

So, try to imagine yourself in the huge "nothing" looking at universes pop into existence in "pairs", a universe and an anti-universe, in endless numbers.

 

Ergo,, "nothing" is "something",,, nothing is "strings"..

 

To me it was fucking weird that a true nothing doesn't exist,, but when i finally got my head around it,, it was like a "light-bulb" that lit up in my head.

 

The problem with string theory is that it can probably never be proven visually.

 

Because if you'd scale up an Atom 60 billion times, it would be the size of a coffee cup,, but if you shrink it 60 billion times,, it would be the size of a "string"...

 

That's my take on it anyways

[Guest]

That's pretty much bang on for me too Grasman, even as a kid the idea of nothing never sat with me so grasping string was never an issue like that. String can and will be proved the day someone works out dark matter in my opinion. Noone knows the energy output of dark matter, and whether the centre of a black hole is purely dark matter

 

If/when they prove the higgs bosson then they will be closer to creating miniature sustainable black holes, and I believe the secrets to string theory, dark matter and the possibility of using speeds faster than current standard physics dictates are somewhere within there

 

Curiosity, was that Googled or do you just make great use of your time once you've had your smokey time?

 

Edit: Also just to add, what's your take on the theory that a black hole has the entry and exit point? Obviously that is the point of wormhole theorem but I'm still not sure whether its dark matter transporting energy to specific points or whether its actually a set tunnel system so to speak with one way in and one way out

[Guest]

Breaking news from The Onion!

 

Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked

 

LEBANON, OHIO—Apollo 11 mission commander and famed astronaut Neil Armstrong shocked reporters at a press conference Monday, announcing he had been convinced that his historic first step on the moon was part of an elaborate hoax orchestrated by the United States government.

 

According to Armstrong, he was forced to reconsider every single detail of the monumental journey after watching a few persuasive YouTube videos, and reading several blog posts on conspiracy theorist Ralph Coleman's website, OmissionControl.org.

 

"It only took a few hastily written paragraphs published by this passionate denier of mankind's so-called 'greatest technological achievement' for me to realize I had been living a lie, " said a visibly emotional Armstrong, addressing reporters at his home. "It has become painfully clear to me that on July 20, 1969, the Lunar Module under the control of my crew did not in fact travel 250,000 miles over eight days, touch down on the moon, and perform various experiments, ushering in a new era for humanity. Instead, the entire thing was filmed on a soundstage, most likely in New Mexico."

 

"This is the only logical interpretation of the numerous inconsistencies in the grainy, 40-year-old footage," Armstrong added.

 

Amstrong was swayed by OmissionControl's use of bolding and capital letters to highlight NASA's many blatant fallacies.

 

Although Armstrong said he "could have sworn" he felt the effects of zero gravity while soaring out of the Earth's atmosphere and through space, he now believed his memory must be flawed. He also admitted feeling "ashamed" that he had failed to notice the rippling of the American flag he and Buzz Aldrin planted on the surface, blaming his lack of awareness on the bulkiness of the spacesuit and his excitement about traveling to the "moon."

 

"That rippling is not possible in the vacuum of space," Armstrong said. "It must have been the wind from an air-conditioning duct that I didn't recognize because you can't hear a damn thing inside those helmets."

 

"This is all just common sense, people," he added. "It's the moon. You can't land on the moon."

 

In a symbolic display of his newfound skepticism, Armstrong then grabbed a collection of moon rocks he had kept as souvenirs and dramatically dumped them into a trash can.

 

One of the main arguments posited on Coleman's website—that America could not, in 1969, have realistically possessed the technological capabilities needed to put a man on the moon—was reportedly one of the first things to cause the legendary astronaut a pang of doubt. Despite having spent thousands of hours training for the historic mission under the guidance of the world's top scientists, technicians, and pilots, Armstrong said he knew the conspiracy theories were true after learning that website author Coleman was "quite the engineering buff."

 

"Yes, at the time I thought those thousands of NASA employees were working round the clock for the same incredible goal, but if anyone would know what was really going on, it would be Ralph Coleman," Armstrong said of the 31-year-old part-time librarian's assistant. "He knows a lot more about faked moon landings than I ever could. He's been researching the subject on the Internet for years."

 

"Literally years," he added.

 

Addressing another inconsistency brought to light by OmissionControl, Armstrong explained he was probably so focused on piloting the lunar module that he failed to notice that one of the moon rocks visible in footage of the landing appears to have the letter 'C' stamped on it. An emotional Armstrong said that the only possible explanation for this detail was that the rock actually came from NASA's prop department.

 

"They forgot to turn it over," Armstrong said, removing his eyeglasses to wipe away tears. "Those lying bastards at NASA went through all the trouble to fake the moon landing, but they forgot to turn over one little prop rock. And now the whole damn thing's blowing up in their faces."

 

Although Armstrong initially questioned why the U.S. would attempt such an elaborate cover-up, he cited one overarching explanation provided by Coleman: that it was a ploy to defeat the Soviet Union and fulfill the Illuminati's plan to unify the world's banks and control the dissemination of information.

 

"Just ask Ralph Coleman," Armstrong said. "He'll answer any questions you have."

 

To conclude the press conference, Armstrong showed reporters footage of his first steps on the moon to demonstrate that the most daming evidence was "right under our noses." Speeding up the tape and replaying the graceful moonwalk several times in a row, Armstrong explained that the iconic images of humanity's triumphant dance with the cosmos was actually just a film of him walking backwards, slowed down, and played in reverse.

 

"What other explanation could there be?" Armstrong asked. "It's all right here. Everything is all right here if you'd just open your damn eyes and see!"

 

Added Armstrong, "I suppose it really was one small step for man, one giant lie for mankind."

[Grasman]

That's pretty much bang on for me too Grasman, even as a kid the idea of nothing never sat with me so grasping string was never an issue like that. String can and will be proved the day someone works out dark matter in my opinion. Noone knows the energy output of dark matter, and whether the centre of a black hole is purely dark matter

 

If/when they prove the higgs bosson then they will be closer to creating miniature sustainable black holes, and I believe the secrets to string theory, dark matter and the possibility of using speeds faster than current standard physics dictates are somewhere within there

 

Curiosity, was that Googled or do you just make great use of your time once you've had your smokey time?

 

Edit: Also just to add, what's your take on the theory that a black hole has the entry and exit point? Obviously that is the point of wormhole theorem but I'm still not sure whether its dark matter transporting energy to specific points or whether its actually a set tunnel system so to speak with one way in and one way out

No i didn't google that,, it was a result of reading two articles on the New Scientist website 4-5 months ago, since then there have been several articles on the subject.

I regularly read the New Scientist, and have done so for a little over a decade, but have been too busy recently to do so properly... Especially since reading that sort of info can be very time consuming and a lot of thought is needed to understand the info, or at least to make an attempt at understanding it,,lol

 

With Black holes i am still on the fence, like everyone else,, but if Black holes are a "Universal leak", from one point to another, one way,, then they shouldn't really get "full", as seems to be the case with many of the big ones.

And if they are a "leak", could they leak out of the Universe, perhaps into another universal "bubble" very close to ours?

 

But Black holes sure are a fascinating phenomenon, if indeed they exist at all.

 

One question to you,, might sound very stupid though.. How do they spin these particles?

Is is done through fiber, vacuum or??

 

Always wanted to understand that a bit better.... I know they are being "accelerated" while they travel, hence the need for the LHC, so the distance to accelerate was greater, allowing the particles to travel with greater force/speed,, but "how"????

[Guest]

Ok the easiest way to describe it, if there is an easy way, is that the subatomic particles get highly charged and pushed onwards using a variety of electromagnetic fields to constantly accelerate the protons (and/or lead nuclei). The particles are held in place with ultra high power beams and fired around until they reach a certain speed then the particle beams are set to collide (hence the name obviously lol) and well, you know the rest

 

An old standard tube tv is a basic particle accelerator so if you have a concept of those then even the LHC is just a bigger better version of that

 

Edit: In fact for those that are lost, watch iron man 2 as the principles are the same lol

[Grasman]

Ok the easiest way to describe it, if there is an easy way, is that the subatomic particles get highly charged and pushed onwards using a variety of electromagnetic fields to constantly accelerate the protons (and/or lead nuclei). The particles are held in place with ultra high power beams and fired around until they reach a certain speed then the particle beams are set to collide (hence the name obviously lol) and well, you know the rest

 

An old standard tube tv is a basic particle accelerator so if you have a concept of those then even the LHC is just a bigger better version of that

 

Edit: In fact for those that are lost, watch iron man 2 as the principles are the same lol

Nice mate,, the highlighted is what i was after, thanks.

 

Question,, is the tube tunnel with pressured gas or does it run in vacuum?

It should be "easier" to get maximum velocity in vacuum (low friction) than under pressure, or is friction irrelevant at the particle level?

[Face Kicker]

lol, that onion article is awesome.

[Face Kicker]

Well obviously for the cheese, but if things do go slightly tits up then there is a teeny tiny possibility that whilst spinning those pesky protons in the giant race track it could open a black hole that will destroy the planet. If it was that then its more god damn the swiss for letting them build it lol

 

You seem fairly knowledgeable on this stuff FK... do you think the dimensions theory is plausible (string theory)?

 

 

yeah, but it's kinda fun to think that we're slightly teetering on the brink of existence!

 

i don't read all that much on this stuff, to be honest, but i try to watch tv shows about it whenever i see them (the "through the wormhole" and "how the universe works" series on the science channel, for example, were fascinating), and i'll check out science websites from time to time to see what the headlines are, and read any stories that pique my interest.

 

*edit* but yeah, i think string theory is the most plausible causation for a lot of this stuff.

[Face Kicker]

Nice mate,, the highlighted is what i was after, thanks.

 

Question,, is the tube tunnel with pressured gas or does it run in vacuum?

It should be "easier" to get maximum velocity in vacuum (low friction) than under pressure, or is friction irrelevant at the particle level?

 

yeah, it's a vacuum. if it was pressurized gas i doubt they could reach the speeds that they need to, due to friction.

 

take a gander at these:

http://physics.about.com/od/particleaccelerators/a/largehadron.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/large-hadron-collider3.htm

 

can you imagine getting an electricity bill for 30 million bucks a year? lol

[Grasman]

yeah, it's a vacuum. if it was pressurized gas i doubt they could reach the speeds that they need to, due to friction.

 

take a gander at these:

http://physics.about.com/od/particleaccelerators/a/largehadron.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/large-hadron-collider3.htm

Nice mate, thanks

[Guest]

That's not why, they use a vacuum rather than pressurized gas for 2 reasons

 

First is because space is a vacuum and a whole heap of the things they're looking for (black holes, dark matter, anti matter) all exist freely in a vacuum

 

Secondly and most importantly, they cannot use gas as if a single molecule gets in the way or collides with a proton then the test will be ruined and could potentially cause issues or damage

[Face Kicker]

That's not why, they use a vacuum rather than pressurized gas for 2 reasons

 

First is because space is a vacuum and a whole heap of the things they're looking for (black holes, dark matter, anti matter) all exist freely in a vacuum

 

Secondly and most importantly, they cannot use gas as if a single molecule gets in the way or collides with a proton then the test will be ruined and could potentially cause issues or damage

 

ah, good point. i probably should have thought about my response for another few seconds lol

[Guest]

I agree

 

Who cares if it cost a shit load of money....we have been going to war with Iraq and Afganastan and spending billions rebuilding there shit....I say if they have made it to the moon they would have gone back by now to scan/probe it for all it's worth. I mean c'mon when people find something new on earth they go to no end to examine it to the fullest extent. Nobody has attempted to go back since we supposably made it there. The human race would want more, they would want to go back and examine it as much as possible.

Except of course they did go back multiple times. There's nothing there. How should they profit from bringing moonstone back to earth? Moonstone are the new diamonds? Explain it to me.

 

...

according to our calculation

...

Hahaha! I hope you have a team of scientists for that and not a potheads living in your basement! Btw I never realised the forum had so many particle physicists on it.

[Grasman]

Hahaha! I hope you have a team of scientists for that and not a potheads living in your basement! Btw I never realised the forum had so many particle physicists on it.

"Our" = human kind.

 

You don't have to be a particle physicist to attempt to understand what it is all about, to understand some of the results.

 

After all, you can add 2 + 2 without being a mathematician.

 

It's much easier to just say "God did it" or just a general "doh" when it comes to complex matters, but I'd rather make an effort at understand the various elements that make all the shit tick.