rrw4rusty

Hi! Just three questions (not 11): 1. One of the dimensions discussed in M-Theory (or perhaps pre-M-Theory String Theory?) is where every possible action that can take place, 'does' take place but in different dimensions. I think I have that right. Does this theory have a name? 2. Yet another dimension suggested or predicted in M-Theory relates to strings on different Branes... is this correct? 3. Also M-Theory predicts that instead of 10 dimensions that strings vibrate into, there are 11. Is it ever suggested that either of the dimensions in questions 1 and 2 are part of this 11 dimensions or, are we now looking at 13 dimensions (or more?)? As you can see, there are 3 primary questions however, curled up within each one are tiny additional higher dimensional questions. Rusty

Hi, I have tried to determine where to put superstring/M-Theory posts. They seem all over the place right now. At this point I'm surprised they don't have their own forum or, are at least mentioned under a forum. LOL! This is probably because they fit into any one of 4 out of the 5 Science categories and, according to many, even Pseudoscience and Speculations. Suggestions? If the answer is already posted somewhere, sorry I missed it. Thanks! Rusty

Spyman! Thanks for replying! "The geometry of spacetime" (TGOS) sounds like a hammer hitting the nail on the head. But I'm not going to bob my head and with the wave of my hand, say 'Oh, TGOS... oh, like okay'. Please help me out here, in any way you can. If it determines whether you are turning or all the stars are turning it has to be more than just words, yes? Can you tell me what we know about it (or point to something that explains it) Has TGOS been detected? Do we know what it is? Do we know what carries it as it 'permeates' the universe? Do we know anything that can affect it? Is it gravity or related to it. It is like gravity in that it communicates what is turning and what is not and what is accelerating and what is not much as gravity communicates what is up and what is down and what is escape velocity and what is not. If there is something you can tell me, please try to indicate whether it is fact, theory or personal view point. Thanks! Rusty Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Severian! Thank you for replying! I mean that -- your have a PhD and your fav area of sci is physics, input from you would be valued. In good faith I started to reply but regretably... you require too much data. I'm not saying that you do not need this data to respond, it is just that others can see what I'm after without wondering about things I did not mention such as gravity (as well as spacetime curvature??) and realities (not only 'which' lol but 'whose'). Actually it seems like you've lost patience and have just emptied a full magazine from your fully automatic question-gun into me... probably because you correctly see that I'm stumbling around trying to ask my real question, which today, LOL, seems to be "What propagates the geometry of spacetime?" And, Re "Why no?" you're right, the black barrow is creating centrifugal force. Cheers, Rusty

Knowing the definition of 'pathetic fallacy', Swanson's post only got a shake of the head from me. The phase means something like 'to treat an object as if it were a person with human feelings' and therefore technically speaking a case can be made for swansont being correct. However people commit pathetic fallacies all the time and, this phase has to be the most unfavorable sounding phase I've every heard. If a person did not know the definition it sounds like 'not only are flawed, you are pathetically flawed'. For myself, I would have to think twice about tossing it out in a post, LOL. The thing about posts is that what you post tends to reflect back on you more strongly than the person its directed at.

Interesting. What I really wanted to know was is there any reason rotation won't work in space as a replacement for gravity. Same for acceleration. I'd heard that NASA had canned the idea of centrifugal force in future space ships. I should have just asked that question, Dho! Rusty

We paint the barrow white. So now lets say that unknown to the observer everything we have put together for this test is itself centered and aligned within a larger black barrow which has been hiding the rest of the universe. This larger black barrow, along with everything in it, is rotating in the opposite direction of the white barrow. Would you still get the centrifical force? No because in reality the spinning white barrow is acually standing still with respect to the universer at large. Something connected to the universe at large is reaching through and affecting our white barrow. What is it? Rusty

Oh, that's because Earth's gravity over powers the centrifugal force. The trick is to tweak the balance -- since you can't change the Earth's gravity you have to put on more spin and increase the centrifugal force. I use a cutting board -- cutting board and coin in hand, begin running really fast (make sure you're pointed due East) and try spinning the coin on the cutting board. If it continues to spin, just run a little faster and eventually the coin will fail to spin. Keep us posted. Rusty

The hypothetical universe in the OP 'is' our universe just modified as stated.

You've been really going after this with me and I so apprciate it! What tells the EM waves that 'this' is straight, that this is rotation and this is not? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle It hits the nail on the head (or did you send me this??!!??). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It's 3 AM here in San Diego... where do all of you people live, LOL!!!! Lots of interesting ideas have come in! It was you that sent me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle Bravo! In looking at all your posts Mr. Bond, you've pointed out fallacies in other posts (ideas) while you've not attempted to offer a solution yourself ..BUT.. you did send me a link to the can of worms I was opening. Excellent work as a moderator! My wife's already not talking to me lol and I don't need a frame of reference to see that! I'm going to bed. Cheers, Rusty

Thanks for replying! This I completely understand -- so then, in a universe with no external references what defines this 'straight line'? That's the point. Returning to the normal universe, the distant stars determine everything -- even if you hide them. They determine a straight line, acceleration and rotation. How can they do that? The question I'm trying to resolve can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle From what I've read so far, it seems to be complex and may have no easy answers (or maybe there is an easy answer and I just haven't got to it yet). Rusty Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is excellent! I never thought of this but I can sure see it. But again, its like you are moving though something that establishes what is normal, what is 'constant' what's a straight line and what is or is not rotating. Again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle is the unresolved dilema. Rusty Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is also really really good. I'll have to think about this one. I think this works as the rotation is started but once something is moving at a constant speed this breaks down. What tells the atoms that this is straight and going off this path is turning?

I'm sorry if it seems I've run this thread into the ground. If my OP was answered I really didn't catch it, I'll re-read everything. I do need to research several posts that might be the answer. As for... EM waves was a possible answer and comes from here: And this seemingly shot down that answer: As for... I'm confused at the moment -- too much multi-tasking, lol. Those items have been mentioned but I don't yet see an answer (to the OP) in them... but I'm still looking 'non-inertial frame'?? I need to refresh myself on 'non-inertial frame' -- I didn't think it applied. I'll let this thread rest for a while... while I do some home work. I certainly do not wish to abuse anything... this forum has been an enormous help to me. r

In this case, what would guide electromagnetic waves (i.e. know if the rod is turning or, the barrow is turning -- see original post)? Something that comes to mind that has not been mentioned is gravity... I believe that gravity would be everywhere in the universe. There was another item mentioned that I have yet to look into: angular momentum. Someone out there must know the answer -- I can't believe that I've come up with something that's never before been considered. Rusty

If I'm readding this correctly then "electric and magnetic fields" fill space and guide electromagnetic waves. Electric and magnetic fields are my 'ether''.

Dr. Syntax, Yes, this is what I must research -- maybe today. The question that pops to mind is: how do electromagnetic waves know whether an object is spinning or the unseen universe is spinning around the object? They have to be keying off of something. Thank you so much for your help! Rusty

That's it exactly... someone must know (and there is a post above that needs research on my part that probably explains it). This is basically relativity in rotation-- what says one thing is rotating and one thing is not? Well the item swinging around in a circle is going against the curve of space/time... that's why the item 'wants' to go straight and it takes energy to make it swing... but what is space/time, where is it, what does it look like and despite what anyone says, isn't this an ether that all things move through? I know I'm sounding stupid here... I just need to understand. Rusty

"Small" is all I was going to specify in the book. It would need to be about Cygnus X1 size. I was just going to use Norton's RAD Scrubber22 with the intense gamma ray plug-in... unless you know of a better way. Rusty

In my book (almost done!) a small one is created as a primer then larger and larger ones are 'captured'.

It's so embarrassing when I don't get posts like this that sometimes I pretend that I do!

Hi, Three questions: 1. Can a person in a sound proof air tight room with no windows tell the difference between 1 gee produced because: a. the room is on Earth b. the room is under constant acceleration c. the room is being subjected to centrifugal force? 2. Aren't all three due to bending space/time? 3. Aren't gravitons involved in all of the above? From the armchair, Rusty

Nice Photoshop work!

Hi, I've wanted to ask this question for decades and I'm sure it's the oldest, tiredest relativity question around. Take a universe with nothing in it (or nothing visible) -- no external reference. Then take a barrow and drill a hole in the center of each end and place a rod through the barrow long enough to extend from each end. Now put some air in the barrow and a person. Finally weld a handle on the inside wall of the barrow. Got all of that (know where this is going?)? Place all of this in the frame-less universe and spin the rod that runs through the barrow. Inside, the person holding on to the handle otherwise floats around watching the rod above him (there's no 'above' but you know what I mean) turn. Okay. Got that pictured? Why is there no centrifugal force? With no external frame of reference, no ether, no invisible space/time structure what's the difference between this and a situation where the person is pulled to the side of the barrow and watching the rod above him turning. Something knows if the rod is turning or, the barrow is turning. What is this something? Thanks, Rusty

It was always my understanding that an event horizon could probably not be seen by the naked eye. No light comes directly from it so if there was nothing behind it (kind of impossible) you'd just see black, otherwise the light from what's behind it wraps around it. That's pretty boring for a sci-fi book so there, it's viewed through a view screen w/computer enhancement showing a black sphere with the light around it bending inward and, on the black sphere some purple haze for Hawking Radiation (yes I grew up in the 60s and in Hollywood). But, I never thought of contraction! I would say that what you 'see' (the lens effect on surrounding light or, via a view screen the black sphere) is what contracts. How much contraction would there be???? Re the singularity, it is thought to have no volume, yes? But still, a charged singularity is thought to spin so fast that it morphs into a one dimensional donut as I recall. So I think it would contract though no one would see it (well, in the story someone will but besides the point). Re: hitting a planet. I also never considered what would happen if a black hole traveling at .99 c to an unfortunate planet hit that planet but if I had, I would have thought that what would happen would be determined by some simple math. You have the size of the bh*, its gravitation force, its area of falloff, the speed at which it travels, the speed at which the bh is traveling, the gravitational force and time needed to suck down a planet whose size and so forth we can... make up. I don't have the knowledge to do this but I'd LOVE to do the computer simulation in 3D software (I have and use 3D software but plugging in the formulas is not something I've ever done). * In the book, the bh is the gentle giant type thought to be found in the center of galaxies. The event horizon at rest is thought to be the size of a solar system (why screw around? besides anything else would be to turbulent for... ah... well, what's inside). Any of that sound right or reasonable? Rusty

You didn't use your special moderator text.

Hi! I love you guys, lol! Okay... how about streaking by our solar system... relative to our solar system? Any problems now? Rusty

And as you approach the speed of light, mass approaches infinity. Okay. BTW, the power accelerating the singularity comes from the singularity so, as it's mass increases we have more power, yes... or no?? So what kind of problems will we have?