mr d

hello check crude oil prices leading up to and after his death. also he had made mention how he wished to carry out operations, and was,against oil supply interests in iraq. including past attacks on the oil pipe lines. so while people who profess we must do this war to secure oil supplies, then they must also except that people will be killed for this purpose. and if you killed someone to keep your oil prices low, you should enjoy the benefit resualting. this also applies to goverments. many goverments decry the 'american war' to their people, but are quite pleased that the united states is helping to keep oil prices low, to the benefit of their people and economy. mr d

hello it say first up, this question will be taken by many to be in bad taste, or heartless and politically incorrect. the question however is what has been the direct benefit to you by zarqawi's death. currently living the united states, and have found the price of petrol has dropped from approx. $3.35 a gallon to $3.02 a gallon. as since the man's death gas prices have fallen as world producers feel there will be a more stabile supply, hence more competition so the need to lower prices. so everyone says this war in the gulf is a war over oil\gas, so we the western nations are eliminating people who could disrupt our fuel supplies. if you accept this is a war over oil and not terrorism. so what is the cost benefit in your area of the world from this man's death? mostly just gas prices, though many items are petrolium related, and transport cost related to them is cost to you. is this way of talking about mr. zarqawi is consider flipant i disagree. though i can't not say i' over sad at his demise, i believe he would have preferred not have to die for his cause, and would have been quit pleased to know he could be costing westeners increased out of pocket expense. mr d

hello having earlier in my life learned a number of soft and hard stlyes of martial arts (hard being those systems like karate and tae kwon do, while soft includes wing chung, kempo, certain kung fu styles) thought i'd add my two cents. different hand positions, knuckle strikes, ridge hand, palm, etc are used for attacks to different body targets and can depend on how you wish the force of your blow to be distributed and in which direction you wish the force to travel. as this is a science forum i believe it is force = mass x speed. so a 250 lbs fellow punching at 1 meter per second, would deliever the same force as a 125 pound person who could punch at 2 meters per second. however due to the design of the human body speed tends to fall into a range where one person is not going to be able to punch at twice the speed of every one else (though it may sure feel that way at times). also due to the portion of hand or leg used determines and area of impact, or if you will the focus point of delievery of the force. open palm spreads the force, but delievers damage to a wider area. straight forward knuckle punch less damage area put greater force deliever to a specific point. but your target also determines how you wish to strike. i believe someone above stated they boxed. i think if you asked them if they wanted to delievery a good liver shot it would tend not to be done with a straight punch, but more likely a hook to the right side, or uppercut to the delievered at the bottom line of the rib cage. as to telegraphing. your stance can often set what types of attacks you can do from that stance. you know what attacks they can do you know what to look out for, and what you might exploit. also telegraphing refers to tensing. a lot of fighters may tense muscles just before they throw punch, you see them tense you know the punch is coming. combined with the above and depending on how good you are, you'll know where to defend or how to counter. also fighters who develope a sequence of attacks they always use can be telegraphing. figure out they're pattern and you get an advantage. twisting of the body means putting more of the bodie's weight/mass behind the blow, as does stepping forward while delievering the blow. and you'll see fighters cock back on some punches to create more distance to generate more momentum hence force. just throwing a punch with your arm means the only weight behind it is your arm's. hey i still remember that training, its just to do a jump side kick now a days i'd need a week to get up speed; and might manage to get high enough to kick you in the shin then promptly crawl away to huff down on an oxygen tank for a few hours. mr d

hello http://www.celiac.com/index.html http://familydoctor.org/236.xml http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/celiac-disease/DS00319 http://www.cdc.gov try these if not already. as above your sister should immediately modify her diet to avoid gluten a protein found in wheat products. be careful to read the labels on food packages as wheat can be found in other than simply bread products, provides a binding agent in some other foods. also she should start diary of what she eats, as a person with food allergies i can tell you that she may develope other allergies though unlikely. but a diary will help show if other items make her ill as well, and you may see a common thread amougst them. if celiac, they do think it is genetically based, so once it starts usually no going back. if you read one of those sites i believe it is mentioned they think it may be a throwback gene where for most of human developement the human diet consisted of meat and fruit and berries, wheat is a recent developement and has only been cultivated for some 4,000 years. and that in some people a gene gets triggered that considers wheat\gluten to be a poisonous substance, as for around 50,000 years humans ate no wheat. but only a theory, they have no proof. fortunately it appears to be controllable by modified diet. unfortunated that includes loosing a lot of fine pasta dishes. perhaps you might see if there are wheat substitue versions. celiac seems rather common so would suspect such to be the case. mr d

hello thought it was time to suggest another odd idea, this time dealing with the brain and dreaming. people are always asking why do we dream, as it appears most if not all mammals do. or for that matter why do we need sleep. attempting to reason this out i conclude it must have to do with the way the mammalian brain is designed to function structurally. your brain needs to co-ordinate bodily functions and recieve and process external stimuli, but also must handle internally generated data return from those functions as well. added to this is the shuffling of stored information as required to preform tasks, and sort and store data collected. plus the processing of more complex higher level thinking. all sounds rather busy. to some extent this seems quite like what a computer processing unit does, and i'll start this idea with as many have suggested that the brain is a type of biological computer. and as a computer has limits on memory and processing speed so does the human brain, and its ability to route and manage data being inputted in to the system. for memory a computer has a disk drive, the brain the outer cortex (general not specific region) used for information storage. however, and this relates to sleep, like a computer the brain also has a set of ram memory in which programs are run quickly (such as the 512k or 1 gig most people have in their machine), that can in times of need barrow from the outer brains memory to carry out processing. but like a computer borrowing disk space for virtual memory there is a cost in processing speed. As you stay awake more and more information is poured into this base ram, plus you call up from memory programs as needed for task (such as making a cup of coffee or how to type at a keyboard). but the longer you remain awake and the more you have to preform, both physical and mental tasks, the quicker this memory is consumed. sooner or later your brain has to begin hitting your biologic hard drive, and your ability to think-reason-preform physical tasks begins to decline. your mind has some ability too sort out data to clear space, but like the size of a computer's bus can only handle so transfering so much data at a time. the resault is your body needs to shutdown some systems to clear memory and repioritize what it needs to function. basically it needs you to sleep, time for it to run a sorting program. as you fall to sleep, which needs to be in stages as unloading from memory such information as how to breath might be concidered a spot bad, your mind shuts down unnessissary functions and unloads now unneeded programs (like how to cook diner) to begin clearing space. but at the same time your body still needs to monitor itself and your surroundings for such things as physical threats. finally you reach a deep sleep, where many cognitive functions are put on hold, and the brain now less cluttered can go though the information sitting in your ram memory and decide what it thinks is important to store and how and where to store it. once done it now must bring you out of sleep which again must be done in stages. this is where dreaming comes in. as you brain begins to reactivate your cognitive\reasoning systems you are in a state where reasoning does not have full recoginition of the world around it. yet your mind is still doing some sorting, plus pulling in information it considers needed (like steps needed in making that morning cup of coffee). Also emotional states are reloaded. so now your still sleeping, but your mind is beginning to function. your brain is still doing it's sorting at a lower level moving about information and images, and now that image of the snake you saw at the zoo passes through, or your brain kept it during sort as a percieved possible threat. your brain now doing some cognative functions says 'hey.. there's a snake here. why is there a snake here.' yet you don't quite yet have all the brain functions that can tell you this is only a dream. your mind must try to make sense of this. and here we see the influence of imagination and emotional state, on limited reason. your low level emotions, sometimes refered to as your reptilian brain, says i'm afraid, your imagination now sees the snake as sixty feet long and trying to swallow you. however your reasoning self says 'how can that be, where am i.'. fortunately or unfortunately for you your imagination says 'it's because we've been thrown into a snake pit.'. and between the two create in your mind a snake pit for information and images stored in your memory for you, plus they then manage to create and entire reality in your mind to explain why this event is happening. i'll be one of those that say dream images are not as important as the emotions played out in dreams. remember that reptilian brain contains base emotions, its the one where by you hate your boss and would love to visciously club the fellow for a while that gets over ruled by your higher function brain while awake. but it is given more free rain while you sleep. and as some suggest dreams might also serve as a means to allow the repressed reptilian brain to act out its raw emotions while you sleep, to help prevent it from carrying out what it might want to do while you awake. hense such sayings as 'sleep on it you'll feel better.'. strange thoughts mr d like thoughts and questions? oh... a test for you on the imaginative verus logical parts of your brain. try this on yourself or better yet another person. tell them to imagine this. they're in a long hallway, and they start moving down the hallway and describe the hallway, then finally they see a door at the other end. they move up to the door and go through it. whta's there. time to imagine this...tick...tock...tick...tock while going down the hallway what did it look like. were the walls painted? was there carpeting on the floor? any lights, overhead or wall fixture. what colors were the walls? then how big was the hallway, most people will have a hallway about that in a average office, or their home hallway. why? because to your mind that is the size of a hallway. yet the lights, carpeting, paint color is supplied by your imagination usually based on references objects you've seen combined with your own tastes. and did you walk down the hallway or float? did you walk on the ceiling and not the floor? surprising how many people while imagining still walk on the floor. plus your door, nice shiny brass knob, big old fashion glass, pushbar, or just swinging. did you actually open the door or simply go through it as i said. nasty thing that logical reasoning still makes most people turn the knob and open the door. and what was beyond. logic wants something there, imagination provides.

hello not sure if this should be here or in religion or politics. some time ago public television in the u.s. ran program on the scope's monkey trail. the link is to the transcript of the program. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/filmmore/pt.html thought it might prove of some interest to see site members. the supposed creationism verus evolution trial becoming a platform for freedom speech verus social darwinism. how scopes' voluteered to the aclu to be prosecuted not over evolution but freedom of speech. and how the town authorities encouraged him to do so to attract business to their town. it bit long to read, but i believe worth the time. gives a view of the event as it was for it's time, which differs quite a bit from how many percieve the trail today. and if nothing else it is informative to read the trial transcript portions, just to read how speakers/lawyers like william jennings bryant and clarence darrow compare to the likes of the proposed great lawyers of today. though i must confess i don't know how much i care for clarence darrows defense leopold and loeb mention briefly here. kinda the progenator of the i'm not responcible for my actions it's how i was raised...too many twinkies...my parents didn't love me defenses we so much of today. mr d hope it brings new light to an event many tought they already knew about.

hello just dropping by to add a question. part of the reason i suspect energy having a roll in time is a need for a constant. as the speed of energy is such, and as energy can have no zero weight as it can not have a rest state conjector that in a time association time can therefore never have a rest state, meaning time can not per say stop. however was now wondering if there are other such constants? can think of none, so i decided to quiz the brains out there in the ether of the world wide web. thank you mr d

hello i think the fun here would not be whether or not they could figure the bones age and were collected items, but what would be their interpretations. "hmm... we can see by these artifacts our ancestors were involved in cults of bone worship. and you see how plaster was used to form a shape recreation of these bones here? that ment they recreated bone objects which they could attach to themselves in the belief they would gain the mystic energies of the animal." think back on all the scholarly interpretations you've heard describing pass civilizations based on a few recovered objects. strange thoughts mr d

hello would think most likely cause ,as stated above, chemicals being pumping into your body by itself as a reaction to nerves or stress. such how the fight or flight responce that causes adrenalin to be dumped into your system. your twitch could be a habit you developed as a means to help burn off those chemicals as it were. but if concerned see a physician if you can just for peace of mind. mr d

hello miss use of words by me. think of it more as a base time. by this i mean at the moment of the creation of the universe all energy created was given a base time that subsequent matter derived from that energy also has. however as matter is reformed by such sources from energy it is given a new time stamp, but hyposis that base time remains a component of such matter, and later time stamp can be stripped away leaving the base time. such as with magnetic alignment in rocks. a rock has a base magnetic alignment when created, but picks up other magnetic orientations over time due to earth's shifting magnetic fields. but using de-rezing techniques you can step a rock's magnetic alignment back to it's original orientation. so perhaps time/matter can be the same. new time created as energy retransformed into matter, but base time still is there and can over ride new time stamp. to help maintain a nearly constant time frame for the universe. however for a unspecified period the new time stamp should be detectable by time dialation. to others thanks for info and reading recomendations. mr d

hello like to pose the question on how many people out there think goverment agencies are working with drug cartels to help combat the war on terroism. thought: easiest way to smuggle a weapon, or chemical into an industrialised nation would be through the assistance of people who already have highly developed networks to do so. such as drug runners. whom import millions of tons of product into nations world wide. countries such as iran and afganistan that produce large amounts of opium would be well aquainted with such organizations. to help prevent terrorists from making use of such organizations, how many out there think that goverments that normally combat these drug runners, might be working with them to prevent their being used for such operations. if your choice is allow them to bring in their product in exchange for imformations and refusal to help terrorists. or risk their aiding the enemy that could resault in the deaths of tens of thousands. would those people addicted to the drug product be concidered an acceptable loss for the added security? strange thoughts mr d

hello inbetween works cycles at the moment so thought i'd pop in and take a quick look to see what's going on, and propose a strange thought. that is that time is a component of energy, that what we percieve as time is the moment to moment changes in the state of energy that composes matter. also that like matter time has components like wave and particle, being that time exists as individual moments (particle), and in a stream of moments (wave). conjection that in einstein's slowing of time as lightspeed is near, is a resault of the fact that as you approach lightspeed matter is accellerated to the speed of time. time seems slower because you are travel closer to the speed of time. in such a way if you can effect the speed of energy you can effect the speed of time. so one means of checking such a conjectureuld be that in space large enough objects with massive gavitation fields should be able to shift time slightly. also objects such as blackholes should be surrounded by waves of time dialations. an time shifting should be seen in the matter streams of neutron stars, as energy/matter being created would need to conform from it's creation time to space normal time. just conjecture, agreed-disagree what's your thought. and for you physics math wiz's out there, even if in disagreement can someone for a brain challenge come up with a nifty time equation to go with it. strange thoughts mr d

hello dropping by again to put this link up also. not directly on topic, but about sexual desire, and how variations in certain genes seem to cause variations in levels of desire. all part of ther sliders theory. hope to spend some time back here soon strange thoughts mr d http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060529/sc_space/studysexualdesireisinyourgenes;_ylt=Aiu13mQ440K2JDU6GQV_5OWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

hello ok had to drop by quickly to paste this. could be of interest to some. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060509/ap_on_sc/lesbian_brains;_ylt=AiscMWryW.hMRIY7LMkOPQas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM- think its works somewhat into the idea mr d

hello due to a change in work related research, plus a couple of personal projects to hopefully grift a few quick bucks, shan't be able to spend as much time in discussions on sfn. but i thank you all for your replies and have enjoyed the dialog. with luck shall have the free time in the near future to continue lenghty discussions. thank you again mr d ps: in my opinion if you ain't working a grift, or playing the odds, or working an angle. why that's just unamerican.

hello due to work plans i shall not be able to visit sfn much for a good long while. so affraid won't be able to continue this discussion. though i'd like to thank all for their replies. hope to return sometime. mr d

hello i believe what the defination (lay) is about. is that theroies can a: reality of theory based on scientific data b: reality of theory based on belief when first published einstein's theory of realitivity have no scientific proof beyond mathmatical formula's, i know you will say that is proof, but this is not quantafied data. he conducted no experiments showing his equations right. therefore the exceptance of his theory was at first a reality of theory based on belief. in other words speed as a constant and the speed of light became an excepted as reality as that scientists believed the theory to be correct solely based on their belief in the correctness of the math presented. or another way to put it would be as with 5614, i have no scientific proof you exist. i have no documentation, no experimental data, no genetic samples. from were i sit there is no proof you exist beyond my belief that you do. you exist as swansont because you believe you do and others except that belief, hence you are swansont. by the same means if i and others take to the belief you are not this enity swansont, swansont does not exist. infact using certain means, aided by inparticularly the input by a number of psychiatrists, we could prove in court that you are not swansont and merely and individual suffering a psychotic break with reality. and you can be institutionalised regardless of your protest to the opposite. you are in theory only swansont as long as others believe you to be swansont. or back to relativity in the equaltion e=mc squared. why c why not s or q. the letter c comes to represent the speed of light only because you and others except that is what it represents. otherwise it is a meaningless arbitray symbol without meaning. its only reality is solely based on belief. hence if it is believed the moon is made of cheese, it's reality is that it is made of cheese regardless of what it scientifically made. mr d

hello back for more education ------------------------------- Originally Posted by mr d a theory is defined as: a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. your point i take it would be that since i've conducted no repeated testing of a means to travel faster than the speed of light, the phenomena, that invalidates the theory. however if i can gather a wide enough group of like minded individuals who do believe the theory and we use it to predict the results of faster than light travel and what a human being would experience at such speed. that would therefore be a valid theory by definition. reply swansont The dictionary isn't a valid technical authority. The latter part of the definion is required for the scientific use of the word. Your scenario does not fulfill that, and would not constitute a valid theory until it had been tested and the results matched the predictions. -------------------------------- technically under the definition of theory if i said the moon is made of cheese and 3/4 of the world's population believe that to be true, and i make predictions off of this satement such as tides are a result of chunks of cheese falling into the ocean from the moon that is by definition a valid theory. currently it is accepted that scientific is required to accompany that theory, but technically it is not required. -------------------------------- Originally Posted by mr d ps: still waiting for a clear answer as to why my question of 'if' we somehow became 'he's purposing a theory of beyond light speed, where's his experimental resaults, show us the data; what devises where just to attempt this. how dare you challenge the law of light speed.' perhaps those people studying science, fail to take reading comprehension. reply swansont Challenge away, it happens continually. It's expected to happen continually. But, as I stated before, though, you don't get a free pass. Your idea has to pass through the same gauntlet as any other in science. It's amusing to hear this grousing about sacred helmets and secret handshakes but it sounds like the tantrum of a four-year-old complaining about not getting his way. The protocols of science are not secret and are there for good reason and if you choose not to follow them I don't care, but when you fail to do so, don't complain about being left out. ------------------------------- i think that reading comprehension thing is in effect here. ------------------------------- reply from swansont Freedom of speech is not the issue. This is not political in nature, and it is not a matter of expressing an opinion, to which all are entitled. In science, ideas do not all merit equal consideration. If you want to broach a new idea, expect to have it challenged, for it has to go through the same trial-by-fire that all earlier ideas had to in order to be accepted. A theory that either is or can't be falsified is going to be discarded. ------------------------------- agreeded. but again the faster than light vessel was only a contrivance, a contrivance does not require scientific testing or proof, and was there only to allow to provide for a means to make the circumstances possible for the time difference question. which though 5614 and athiest have been kind enough to answer on, you however have not. and from the way you jumped in only when this bizarre decrying of the scared law of light was touted, tends to lead me to believe you never read the original question. ------------------------------ Originally Posted by mr d or is it theories and laws only stand till they are replaced by other theories and laws, some more valid than others. reply from 5614 Quite essential this: They stand, assumed correctly, until someone comes a long with quite solid evidence that they are incorrect. ------------------------------ glad to hear from you 5614, hope the framing of 'post and reply' are more to your liking. so i take from below that you believe then that there must some amount of challenge to a theory or law needed? still unclear however how you took my original question to be an announced direct challenge to the speed of light? -------------------------------- Originally Posted by mr d and unless those laws are questioned we will never know. reply from 5614 If a law of physics were incorrect someone would notice. When it was first published, when it underwent experimental proof or when it was applied elsewhere, if there were a fault someone would find it. If no one found a fault it could only be because it were correct. Or maybe with something like Newton's Laws of Motion it is correct under all the circumstances they tested it with, sure it is not correct, but in every way they used it they found no significant difference between the real answer and what they got using Newton's Laws. That was until Einstein came along and people set up an experiment deliberately looking for the difference. Only then could they notice the difference. And because you have to work so hard to notice the error in Newton's Laws they are still taught today as basics, general laws which generally apply. c is the speed of light in a vacuum. That is it, it never changes. When light goes through a medium it does indeed slow down, that does not change c, it changes the speed of the light passing through the medium. As c, the constant, is defined as the speed of light through a vacuum what happens in a medium is irrelevant. Scientists don't like the idea of breaking the speed of light, exceeding or replacing c because it is so fundemental in science. It appears everywhere. c is used in relativity all over the place. It is used in Maxwell's equations. It is used in quantum mechanics... it is used everywhere, theoretically, mathematically and experimentally and in Every case it works, perfectly. Now why the hell would you want to change that? And furthermore we see it works in all of those cases, why would we believe you if you said otherwise? -------------------------------- don't quite get the 'medium is irrelevant' part, wouldn't that depend more on the experimenting going on, or use to what the actual speed of light was being put? say use of lasers on crystals. philosophical question if i may. as you say 'scientists don't care for the idea of breaking the speed of light' what would you do if in one of your experiments you actually accelerated a particle\wave to a speed beyond of light, pruely hypothetically of course, not launching a new challenge here. would you release such data. oh and lastly for swansont. that quip about sacred helmets was a use of sarcasm in a crude attempt to draw responce as a means of evalution. but you knew that already i'm sure and were simply playing along, as someone with your intelligence would would never fall for so simple a means of emotional manipulation. enjoying, learning much and adding data useful in other subjects of interest. get impression most respondants have more a theoretical leaning that experimental in regards to their dealings in physics. mr d

hello back, don't go on web on my weekends. to many other things to do. i'll reinvestigate various birth defeats levels, could have sworn that was higher. prehaps based on old data, like i said my idea is old and haven't really spent a lot of time recently working on it. so i'll work based on your numbers for now. as to the statement of damaged material, that is inreference to cause for genetic damage, not cause of homosexuality. explaination: main reason for preference is conjectored as blending of parental genetic material influenced by homones\naturally produced chemicals. damaged material refers to damage occuring to those specific section(s) of genetic material responcilbe for original blending, and\or damage to section(s) responcible for production of hormones\chemicals used. and put foreward that this is most likely a resault of genetic damage\mutations\ or simple reproductive action of cell(s) involved from which the genetic material is taken for the process. secondly, or granted it maybe primary, is that the genetic viability of the opposite sex parent may show the greater influence than what would be generally assigned. now it maybe that these properties happening at the time of preference selection may also be influenced by other developement activities occuring elsewhere. or that (wild) for example, say your nose is being formed at the same time your preference is decided. however certain chemicals needed for that growth could interfer or inhibit chemicals needed in preference selection. or that previous stages during which chemicals\hormones or created could still be present affecting preference blending. with allowance being set for possiblity of external influences causing direct damage to genetic material (such as the effects of drugs on fetal developement), or drugs\disease\ or emotional distress causing chemical\hormone changes effecting infants in early developement stages. far less likely but there must be some chance of being a factor. so that end preference can be influenced by possibly a large number of factors. exceptable in that it does not effect the process enough to supply risk of species reproduction. plus it would have to be considered that other properties inherent in the species may offset rate of preference occurances. a crude example here. after wwii, during which a larger portion of males in the age for species breeding where killed, there was still a boom in number of childbirths. reason, availablity of female breeding partners, and willlingness of males to engage in breeding activities with available females. if you have five females and males in whom a certain degree of non-monogomy is genetically inherent you could still produce five children. hey that's may excuse anyway (can't help it it's genetic). as i said crude, but i think it gets across the idea that other factors may offset birthrates that would result from preference, negating it as a factors in species reproduction rates. as i said before i was surprised that there is still such interest in this subject, so was wondering if you and others who read this post would care to state your reason for continuing interest in subject matter? are you working on your own conjector? mr d

hello hope your finding this dialog as amusing as i am. a theory is defined as: a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. your point i take it would be that since i've conducted no repeated testing of a means to travel faster than the speed of light, the phenomena, that invalidates the theory. however if i can gather a wide enough group of like minded individuals who do believe the theory and we use it to predict the results of faster than light travel and what a human being would experience at such speed. that would therefore be a valid theory by definition. now i also take it that you would purpose my question of the difference in view-time verus real-time is invalid as that it requires an impossibility (greater than light) to accomplish. so to follow through with your line of logic, would that mean during the 10th century when the world was considered flat by men of the church and science at that time. and ships sailing out beyond the horizon found nothing and most did not return. it should have been excepted the world was flat and men like columbus should not have questioned still if the world was round. or when the late astronomer carl sagan theories about landing on other billions and billions of worlds, since man can never travel beyond lightspeed and that he can not achieve the energy required to travel even a fraction of the speed under current understanding, any theory he might espouse is totally invalid because men can not reach those worlds. infact since we can not achieve those speeds all work on intersellar travel becomes worthless and should stop now. or shall we add the scientist of the early 1910's who stated how the then laws of then used by physics and math calculations proved any human being traveling above 30 miles and hour would die instantly. hmm... i must be in purgatory as seemed to have violated some of their laws this morning. or is it theories and laws only stand till they are replaced by other theories and laws, some more valid than others. and unless those laws are questioned we will never know. as to the public having open access to research data. people actually get to see very little research data, as the main portion is carried out by goverments and for profit companies that have no inclinations to reveal most of that information to you or others. they paid for it, it's theirs. and information that is released is always checked first, giving out portions on a need to know basis. even in institutions of learning most research is not released to the general public depending on the person or group financing the research. also for 5614, or athiest if still hanging about, where people throw c(speed of light) as a constant, i seem to vagely recall that was speed was constant in a vacumn, but less than c when traveling through a medium other than a vacumn. so do changes in space density due to matter density and composition present mean light is traveling at different speeds in different areas of space. do i stand a lonely vigil out here willing to question accepted science? for 5614: reason no quotes used is i have to type my answers using notepad in spare momoments, then workbreaks to paste in quick post replys. big brother does not like his machines being used to ask questions. and i enjoy life far more when i don't have to deal with this glorified calcualtor at home. mr d ps: still waiting for a clear answer as to why my question of 'if' we somehow became 'he's purposing a theory of beyond light speed, where's his experimental resaults, show us the data; what devises where just to attempt this. how dare you challenge the law of light speed.' here the sacred horned helmet of science is put on, and the secret members of the royal order of scientific truth rallied forth to preserve logic and reason. btw... do you guy have a nifty secret handshake. perhaps those people studying science, fail to take reading comprehension.

Posted by mr d: would you say the practicioners of physics who came after einstien should never have asked 'what if' his theories (and they are theories not laws, though they seem be backed by more and more validation) about relativity are not all there is to physics. we would not now have quantum physics or string theory. 5614: We are not saying you shouldn't ask 'what if' but if you are going to propose a change as big as you are you'd need a lot of international respect and a very good mathematical and theoretical proof to keep us interested. firstly i must say this reeks, reeks of scientific elitism. any idea no matter how odd, unscientifically based, or what many might call outright insane should be allowed to be voiced. it's a little thing called freedom of speech\thought\idea. would you argue that sfn should have a moderator inspect each post to see if it meets your standard for scientific acceptance. do you fore see a scientific intelligencia created to protect people from unexceptable ideas or thoughts. oh and i did not propose a change, i was merely proposed 'if', this is not an idea put forward as a proposed theory. it is merely a devise that requires a momentary suspension of what you currently accept possible, and asks you to concider 'if' under different condictions could this happen. if i were making an earth shattering proposal challenging einstein's theory of relativity and the limit of the speed of light, though sfn is a fine forum, that would be at a symposium or though scientific publication. and would include a long boring lecture with lots of squiggly math equations and papers on experiments conducted. you see a forum is supposed to be used for the free exchange of ideas, again regardless of whether you consider their context to be of merit or not. Posted by mr d: einstein quote 'imagination is more important than knowledge' 5614: Yes, but imagination does not equal stupidity or illogicality or denying what is correct without any proof. huh... imagination must rely on logical correctness. kind of flies in the face of what is imagination, unless you're suffering from a lack of imagination. 5614: The New Scientist article is from 2004... don't you think if there was solid evidence of this then we all would have heard about it? no. as it tends to point to on going work, and is merely referencing prelimary findings. at that stage in most work points that seem to best draw reaction and news bites are released to attract futher attention to the work and hopefully increase project funding. unless your amoung the group carrying out the work, or amoungst the community of related research scientists whom would recieve the occasional update paper. results of most scientific research never really makes it to the general public. for little of it is truely of any interest or use to the general public. also remember einstein's theory of relativity took decade or more to gain a general acceptance amoung the scientific community, and is still challenged today (again, seems to holdup well to most challenges). if what they propose holds up to preliminary challenge and gains a measure of acceptance, i'd not expect it to be accepted by the general public for a decade or two. question in my mind is since their findings are trying to be used prematurely by creationists to leverage their beliefs (by their interpretation), will they decided that their work stands to be corrupted by politics and limit futher general releases of subsiquent findings. 5614 if you would be so kind however to indulge my asking. as with athiest, thank you again for answering, though the original message ultimately dealt with viewed-time verus real-time, and the faster than light vehicle was only used as a hypothetical means to achieve the to states. a wide array of 'true science' defenders could only see such a vechicle as a violation of their sacred theory of relativity and sought to inform how i could not travel faster than the speed of light. sadly few seemed able to see beyond that to the true question. i admit you at least answered 'er..if you' so you could show some level of suspension. by why are so many unable to do at least that much. for some do they only look for points that allow them to show their vast scientific knowledge from feelings of superiority, or perhaps just trying to stroke threaten ego's. do they think as you put forth above only ideas corresponding to accepted beliefs should be allowed to be voiced. genuine interest. though i must make a leap of faith here that you are a real person. scientifically i have no proof of such. or perhaps sfn is really a company testing and artificial intelligence program and your so many lines of code, imagination used here while it's still free and unregulated by science. enjoying tilting at windmills mr d

hello thank you for your responce athiest, quite interesting. do you consider photons true particles then, and not (a crude word usage here) wave-particles duality? and i understand -zero mass when not in motion, but as a person of physics is there mass when momentum is applied\created? though i must disagree about there not being a need for 'what if' in science. people like da vinci, galileo, copernicus, newton, tesla, einstein, were all men who asked 'what if' and challenged the accepted laws of physics at their times. and many of those laws (modern term) were broken by these men, many of whom purposed what we now concider laws. and i have no doubt there are people out there now asking 'what if' who may cause currently accepted laws to fall, or at least need amending. but does science fall, no. would you say the practicioners of physics who came after einstien should never have asked 'what if' his theories (and they are theories not laws, though they seem be backed by more and more validation) about relativity are not all there is to physics. we would not now have quantum physics or string theory. scientist should always push the bounds of laws or theories to see if they bend or crack. and imaginative-radical thought is required for that. acceptance only breeds complacency. if no one asked 'what if' we'd all be sitting around in crude skin garments hanging out in caves. i believe it was einstein himself who said 'imagination is more important than knowledge'. people of imagination - inventors people of knowledge - technicians thank you again for the reply ps for changing light speed some places of interest. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2181455.stm http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575 http://frontwheeldrive.com/joao_magueijo.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6092 http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000719.html http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html to athiest: what is your view on joao magueijo theories. caution to all: some creationist groups are trying to pass magueijo's theories as laws, in an attempt to discredit the bang bang and theory of realitivity. to show scientific explainations for the beginning of the universe are wrong. site listed above are ones i think show less bias, but show care as many sites listing the subject try to pass themselves off as scientific publications or educational forums mr d

quote athiest: It´s "massless particles" that can and do travel at lightspeed, which includes light. "Energy" really only is a property of a particle or a system of particles, no "entity" - regardless of what the terminoligy "lifeform made out of pure energy" in Star Treck suggests. hum... particles without mass, new one on me i take it more than you mean a gouping of particles that has no collective mass or cohesion, but amoungst whom there is a transference of energy? also depending on definition certain forms of plasma and even simple fire could be considered a lifeform under limit characteristics. reality suggests. but i do thank you sir for your answer to the original quandry. and if i may ask, not just you but other respondants, why so many seemed not to be able to answer the time question as a supposition, but instead zoned in on lightspeed and appeared unable to imagine (that's imagine) a means to travel faster than light. and instead of suspending currently accepted science felt the need to explain why that aspect was impossible at this time (perhaps always). anything can be imagined, so why do so few seem able. do you feel somehow deminished scientifically if asked to imagine? do you think true science excludes the realm of what might be possible, for what has been proven possible? that is not some type of put down, but i would like to see some insite into the logical reasoning of people. ps: i shall attempt to discover the article on light speed being different at the time of creation. mr d

hello more likely recessive traits brought forward by inbreeding, if you look at the small land mass of the earth the so called aryian people occupied small genetic pool available. or could be they were driven out as diseased by these traits by the other race and forced into small secluded area. takes all kinds mr d

hello for atheist Quote: i accelerate my vehicle towards light speed , as i hit lightspeed ... Atheist: Which of course is not possible should actually say 'to our understanding this appears to not to be possible based on current scientific data and proposed theory'. Quote: replys as to whether such a system could work in like manor, would only hypothesis i return to my original question. which is not can we travel beyond the speed of light, but if (perhaps only imaginary) we could travel beyond the speed of light do you consider the difference in current observed earth time, and actual time from any given distant point in space time travel. Atheist: Sorry, but my english skills are not sufficient to decipher this. I suspect you´re asking if what you proposed makes sense? Physically: No, it doesn´t. then i shall attempt to express myself at a level which provides more chance for your comprehension, not just atheist but for all who misunderstand the later quote. we shall leave out the need for a faster than light or wormhole technology. you are standing on earth looking at a distant planet a hundred million light years away. the light you see is from a hundred million years ago and shows how the planet. now though magic, takes imagination but do try, you are hovering above that planet. what you now see of this world will not be seen on earth for a hundred million years. magic brings you back to earth and and once more you see the planet as it once was. question now, would you consider that you have traveled in time? and if you say magic does not exist, please provide scientific proof. magic only requires belief, so if i believe it exists it does, and is the only proof needed to show it does exist. oh: e equals mass times the speed of light-squared. energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light. demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932. also deals with the energy created when mass is convertered to energy. since science says only light\energy\stimulated particles can travel at the speed of light, any mass excelerated to a speed equal to light would have to be converted to light and in the process releasing energy. see subject of nuclear fission. i see a future full of lab technicians chained to their stools by bindings of scientific convention, staring longingly at those whose imaginations allow them the creativity for invention. looking forward to replies mr d