rigney

If you reread my question I think you'll understand. I worked in missiles for several years. Ft. Bliss, White Sands and McGregor Range was my second home. No!, better yet; let me say: my first home. As Platoon Sgt. of a Launching Area, the intricacies of getting a missile, or missles ready for a firing was more than just mechanics, but nothing compared to the guys working in the I.F.C. (integrated fire contol). What we had at our disposal at the time was nothing compared to what these guys contend with today. My question was and still is, how is the compilation of data intergrated, to compensate for the speeding "up or slowing" of these machines moving at such fantastic speeds?

Should I take that as a posture of ambivalence, or do you even relate to what I said? And you really should holster that thing you're waving around, it could be frightening to some folks.

While I can't disagree with time slowing or speeding up in "time pieces" at different speeds and altitudes since it is a fact, how is this correlation formulated into a Moon, Mars, and other projected space missions that somehow always seems to come out right?

The words aren't alien, nor are their general meaning lost on me, Tomg. I only gravitated to the word "empirical", since I hadn't used it, and was unsure of your agenda. Pardon me, but since I now believe what you really had in mind was not an answer to your question, but a show of consternation on my behalf as to your mastery of the subject, lets you and I forget this conversation.

Moon, you've more than likely studied the animations of Einstein's, "eleavator experiment". It doesn't stop there, but is merely a prelude to the mans genius. I googled it up and, Wow!. The simplicity of these explanations is that they come across as so mundane, even I can understand them. And without the numbers or formulas, of which; would make it impossible for me.

Thanks Cap'n. I did the post, but not for consternation. I've glanced at it perhaps three or four time before today. YdoaPs pretty much said it all with his input. Sorry that this happened. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Went over there and looked through some of the stuff. Wow! Thanks for getting things straightened out. The Myans? Oh! yes, the Myans.

Using the word metaphysical was not intended in any sense to give the slightest thought of being empiracle. I had to look the word up after you used it in your statement to even know what it meant. I'm sorry, but I neither have the education or knowledge to iterate .99% of what I put forth. My intent is, if someone can glean and grasp the slightest nuance of my ramblings; then I'll be more than content. The continuum thing? I simply believe that our universe is diverging, not expanding out into it. Hey! even you might get something out of my prattle. Have a good one.

I have read through the entire content four times now and wonder what brought on this wrath of the moderator? Personally, I find nothing more than two guys having different opinions. Perhaps I'm stupid; but what does this have to do with the price of rice in China? Would someone explain?

Gosh!, I would have thought someone with your "aplomb" and Knowledge of physics as you seem to have, woud jump on that right away to help correct or contain my ignorance.

Other than arguable conjecture, is there a reason why such a phenomena might not be happening at this moment? Or has science enlightend us to the point where We know such a thing is impossible? Could our universe not be moving freely out into the "unreal-estate" of a Continuum as this statement is being made?

Somehow this thread has slipped away from the infra red tracking of our universe. But what is more troubling is the different models for our universe, and the way we need to keep buying newer books to stay abreast of the changes. Thank goodness for Google. If not, I'd probably be broke by now. Seriously, many theories are like putting a dough ball on a hook, tossing it into the water to see what bites? Words like branes, strings, ekpyrotics and many other new ones, seemingly very chic at the moment, make me feel rather passe. But where is the valadity for offering many of these theories, other than some fast moving figures that most folks can't even relate to? Plus I've heard this old adage many a time: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, Baffle them with B---S---. What I'm trying to say is, if we can't get a rope on this critter we call universe, why go hunting for something we have no idea of, or that even exists? I love the fact that we live as part of this fascinating program. And even more caught up in the notion that many intellectuals aren't sure of their answers either. Like, which way is up? Someone, anyone out there; bring a new reasoning into this forum, or better yet this post that can be built upon. There are many hidden answers you are afraid to offer because of ridicule. Just don't sit on them. "We all may learn something", especially, yours truely! C'mon back......

St. Matthew: Chapter 18, verses 1, thru 10 Matt: 18:6. it is better that a mill stone;

Getting close to the 4th of July now, and I know the mere mention of such a holiday will likely wrankle a few very sensative noses. So, while not trying to be political, I believe Mo says it best when he made this song. His name; Mo Bandy, a decent singer and entertaining, and If you're hankerin' for some good, honest country; just Listen!

Would you put that into context where an uneducated person like me can grasp it? I assure you, I haven't a clue?? Thanks Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, what I tried to say was, but maybe not too well, many people say the universe came into existance fully grown and just keeps on getting more spread out, not more of it. But then I read today where it could be either "shrinking or expanding". What's a feller to believe as truth?

Since both answers are diametrically opposed and spoken so obligatory, I ain't gonna go there. But, personally I don't understand how an entire universe could just happen without some growth.

So, can red shift help us find other methods of determining where we are in this universe? And with no disrespect to his distinction, will Hubbles law remain the only practical one? Or, will the: Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, be an exact solution to Einstein's field equations of general relativity; which describes a simply connected, homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe? Depending on geographical or historical preferences, a subset of the four scientists — Alexander Friedmann, Georges Lemaître, Howard Percy Robertson and Arthur Geoffrey Walker — may be named (e.g., Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) or Robertson–Walker (RW) or Friedmann–Lemaître (FL)). This model is sometimes called the Standard Model of modern cosmology.[1] But, when hearing of something simply describe as being connected in a homogenous and isotropic "Expanding or Contracting Universe", I "simply" start to panic!! Someone, Help!!

Sort of a rigid formality. But Hey!, this thing has been going on for thousands of years. Wonder if they already have someone in mind for 2012?

While I appreciate your response, my lack of math leaves me to ponder ignorance, "Mine". But in looking back at your sketch on gravity; that is exactly how I perceive a monopole to look like in any atom, regardless of the element. If such a thing as a ball bearing could be magnetized, would it retain both a north pole and south pole as does a bar magnet, or would it be similar to your description of gravity? As I understand it, monopoles exist in subatomic particles and are prevelent in all matter? If I wear out my welcome, just say "chuck it".

Never had the problem, but my daughter did. What a rat race. Actually took three days. But it reminds me of the guy going into a fast food restaurant and ordering a $1.49 salad. Giving the girl $2 bucks, he tells her to keep "two bits" as a tip, expecting at least a quarter back. After mulling the transaction over for a couple minutes, she begins to cry, having never made change like that before.

But Mr. S, are you "ready" for such an innovation??

I sure hope he isn't even "close". I believe we still need at least another 100 billion years to get it right.

I suppose both gravity and magnetism since I understand neither. Other than answers I still might like to question, I see no reason for the seeming animosity on your behalf. Quote:by rigney Cap'n, I'll not disagree with what you say 'cause I really dont know? But I can lay a magnet down under a piece of pape, sprinkle powdered iron on the paper and see the results. Quote: Other than in theory, how do we see that with gravity? And if you will look below (above), I went to Google and there are pages of stuff on monopoles. But, I still don't know anything about them??

It's likely those two words: Creator and Creation add more conflict than harmony, between religious factions. Arguably, science finds itself in this quandry from time to time, competing for bragging rights to a specific formula or system. So, we wind up with three or four different ones in tandem, which isn't bad. Eventually though, science always comes up with an answer, making progress to the next step a lot easier. Not so with religion. Glad to get your reply.

SwansonT, Seems you have a rather preceptive nuance to my questions or responses. My not understanding, and replying with more questioning; seems to have some how ruffled your feathers. And while I mean no disrespect, I suggest you read the entire thread befor becoming so bored with my ignorance. I have worked in industry my entire life and never heard a stupid question. But on occassion, some of my answers may have seemed that way. Rarely do I take a finite stand to assume anything. So, not being a professional in any field, I initiated this thread with what seemed to be a sensible question and have yet to find an answer that is palpable. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Cap'n, I'l not disagree with what you say 'cause I really dont know? But I can lay a magnet down under a piece of pape, sprinkle powdered iron on the paper and see the results. Other than in theory, how do we see that with gravity? And if you will look below (above), I went to Google and there are pages of stuff on monopoles. But, I still don't know anything about them??

Went to Google and typed in "Magnetic Monopole". I don't know exactly what all of it means, but there were pages of it. News Share Blog Cite Print Email BookmarkMagnetic Monopoles Detected In A Real Magnet For The First Time ScienceDaily (Sep. 4, 2009) — Researchers from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie have, in cooperation with colleagues from Dresden, St. Andrews, La Plata and Oxford, for the first time observed magnetic monopoles and how they emerge in a real material. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Magnetic monopoles are hypothetical particles proposed by physicists that carry a single magnetic pole, either a magnetic north pole or south pole. In the material world this is quite exceptional because magnetic particles are usually observed as dipoles, north and south combined. However there are several theories that predict the existence of monopoles. Among others, in 1931 the physicist Paul Dirac was led by his calculations to the conclusion that magnetic monopoles can exist at the end of tubes – called Dirac strings – that carry magnetic field. Until now they have remained undetected. Jonathan Morris, Alan Tennant and colleagues (HZB) undertook a neutron scattering experiment at the Berlin research reactor. The material under investigation was a single crystal of Dysprosium Titanate. This material crystallises in a quite remarkable geometry, the so called pyrochlore-lattice. With the help of neutron scattering, Morris and Tennant show that the magnetic moments inside the material had reorganised into so-called 'spin-spaghetti'. This name comes from the ordering of the dipoles themselves, such that a network of contorted tubes (strings) develops, through which magnetic flux is transported. These can be made visible by their interaction with the neutrons which themselves carry a magnetic moment. Thus the neutrons scatter as a reciprocal representation of the Strings. During the neutron scattering measurements a magnetic field was applied to the crystal by the researchers. With this field they could influence the symmetry and orientation of the strings. Thereby it was possible to reduce the density of the string networks and promote the monopole dissociation. As a result, at temperatures from 0.6 to 2 Kelvin, the strings are visible and have magnetic monopoles at their ends. The signature of a gas made up by these monopoles has also been observed in heat capacity measured by Bastian Klemke (HZB). Providing further confirmation of the existence of monopoles and showing that they interact in the same way as electric charges. In this work the researchers, for the first time, attest that monopoles exist as emergent states of matter, i.e. they emerge from special arrangements of dipoles and are completely different from the constituents of the material. However, alongside this fundamental knowledge, Jonathan Morris explains the further meaning of the results: "We are writing about new, fundamental properties of matter. These properties are generally valid for materials with the same topology, that is for magnetic moments on the pyrochlore lattice. For the development of new technologies this can have big implications. Above all, it signifies the first time fractionalisation in three dimensions is observed."