mooeypoo

Actually, no it doesn't. Radio waves *ARE* electromagnetic waves, which *ARE* light waves, only with different frequency. Light waves and radio waves are both the same speed, they just have different frequency, which means they might travel through different obstacles. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNow as for the OP question ,that's a good one. I'll have to think about it. Technically, light moves the same speed in all frames of reference, but radio waves have "information" within them (different frequencies represent infromation, for example, in FM waves). I believe (I need to check this) that there will be a quite large effect of "stretching" the wave - doppler effect. However, I will need to think about this a bit further to give a definitive answer. I'm hoping one of the other Physics experts helps me out here, too, before I get back to you on that one ~moo

Oh my. Do you, perhaps, mean astronomy? Astrology isn't a science. It's the mistaken belief (proven to be mistaken) that celestial bodies arbitrarily affect your character as you are born, and then as you move through life. We can discuss the (VERY wrong) wrongness of astrology if you like, but I have a feeling that what you ACTUALLY mean here is "Astronomy" which is, in fact, actual science. What you do here is called a "Strawman". The "Big Bang" theory does not state that an atom blew up. In fact, the "Big Bang" theory does not speak of an explosion, it speaks of a rapid expansion. There are VERY important differences in these two definitions, the least of which is the amount of energy expelled from either one, and the method of dispersion. The misleading part of a strawman means that you (accidently, I assume) mis represent the theory so you could then crush it. It's, of course, very easy to crush the theory when it is put forth like that, the only trouble is that this is not really the theory. You might be "crushing" something, but it's not the "Big Bang". What's infinancy? That asked, Astronomy and Cosmology do not depend on beliefs. They are both sciences which are dependent on mathematical and observational models. The current theories have very strong mathematical constructs that both explain very large parts of the phenomena in our universe and make predictions that are held true. If your belief opposes these, you need to bring forth the mathematical constructs that are *at the very least* equally predictive and explain *at least* more than the current theory does. Otherwise, what good does is your theory, and what is our motivation of switching from a WORKING, predictive contruction to yours? That's an interesting hypothesis, but, again, you need to come up with a way to show some evidence of this. At the very least soem BASIS for us to consider. Okay, so, first, the "Big Bang" is a misleading name: It wasn't an explosion. Second, we have no proof there were other big bangs. I'm not sure we *can* prove it, but theories like "M Theory" or "String Theory" claim this type of hypothesis too, but at least they have a very strong mathematical construct that show a bit of their potential. There are arguments about the validity of string theory, because some of it might not be possible to prove - but there are no arguments about its MATH. At least this math exists, and we can start debating whether or not such theory is valid or not because there's some sort of basis to it that shows there *might* be something there. Your idea is interesting, but it is, so far, based on nothing other than a false representation of the "Big Bang" theory and your imagination. You can't truly expect us to go from a well based theory that *help us explain* and PREDICT the universe to a theory that has neither, can you? ~moo

Okay, but what you need to understand is that you're going to present YOUR understanding of the theory, and not necessarily what the theory is about. While it's true the Einstein is most known for his theory of relativity, E=mc² isn't strictly about relativity. It is the mass-energy equivalence, and defines the relationship between energy and mass. It's not quite relativity. Actually, it's not at all. The only "relativity" about it is the speed of light, but that does not make it the theory of relativity. (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence ) Absolutely not. The equation includes time in it. C is the speed of light, and speed is movement *in relation to time*. Velocity is equal to the derivative of position in relation to time = dx/dt. In this equation, the velocity (dx/dt) is equal to the constant C. The equation includes time in it, just not explicitly as the letter 't'. Just a note here - The speed of light is this number above only in a vacuum. In other media, the speed of light is smaller. The relativity part of the speed of light says that no matter in which relative frame of reference you look from, it will remain the same in all. As stated above, you concluded wrong. I don't quite understand what you mean 'fluxuations in this number', or how your premises lead to the conclusion that we can ignore them. No, no no. Time's there, and we can't dismiss it at all. Without it, there's no speed, which means C=0, which means no energy. What do you mean light travels in a forward motion? First off, time itself does not have a direction. If you mean "forward" as in it only "grows" (1, 2, 3..) then that does not follow to the same definition of "forward" of the movement of light; light moves in a spherical shape - all around.. that would make its movement forward *AND* backwards, and sideways, in all directions, at the same time. The equation E=mc^2 ignores the directionality of the speed of light because squaring off the speed negates whatever "minus" sign it would have had to represent the directionality, so we can just not write it. It also means that the ENERGY that is produced does not depend on the directionality of the movement. That does not make light move in one direction only, though. Did he? I don't remember him ever noting anything about that.. do you have any quotes to share? I'd like to see what you mean here. Also - what both? Which differences are you referring to? I think you should watch the video again. It's explaining about simultaneity in DIFFERENT frames of reference. It does not (AT ALL) state that light is one-directional, or that time is irrelevant. (that conclusion doesn't follow the previous premise). Not according ot Einstein. According to Einstein, you cannot exceed the speed of light. That's according to Electrodynamics, too, Maxwell and Lorentz. If you think this is wrong, you need to show us why. The mathematical concepts (and experimental data) tell us that no mass can surpass the speed of light. This statement of yours require more evidence and explanation. At which frame of reference? See, there are frames of reference in which we might already be at that speed. There are definitely frames of reference in which we are moving a lot faster, and others in which we are moving a lot slower. That's the point of relativity. It's relative. Actually taht would depend what you consider "travel". If you consider "seeing the past" as travelling to the past, we do that all the time by looking at distant stars. Their light reaches us after thousands of years, and as a result, we see them as they *were* thousands of years ago, and not as they are now. They might already be dead and gone by now and we still see them as if they exist. Again, we already ARE moving slower than we are, if you look at other references. Besides, if I pick my own frame of reference, then I am now at full stop in front of my computer. My velocity is 0. You can't get slower than that before you start moving physically backwards. Backwards in space (as in, I will push myself backwards from my desk) and not in time. Can you get slower than 0? and if so, at which relative frame of reference? First off, he didn't move in time, he AGED. The fact he doesn't remember (or didn't "compute" his surroundings for) the past 10 years does not mean they didn't happen for him. What if an 80 year old healthy person, living a full and exciting life, gets some head injury that causes him long-term amnesia and all he can remember is his time in college, when he was 20? Would that make him go forward in time too? He just isn't AWARE of the time that passed because of injury or disease - that does not mean time didn't pass for him. He may think he's 20, but his phisiology is still that of an 80 year old. Time definitely affected him. He did not "travel" back to the past, or into the future. NOW you're starting to talk bout issues that might involve relativity. If you take this Person A and put him on a fast ship that travels close to the speed of light, that's exactly what would happen: His time (his reference frame) will be "slower" than the time of the people in whatever was his rest-frame. That's the point of relativity. Yep. That is done by moving FASTER -- moving faster and faster, close to the speed of light, *compared* to other frames, will make time in that moving frame move slower (again, COMPARED to the other frames). Since motion is relative, that theoretically already happens to us -- there are many frames of reference in which time moves much faster compared to us, because we, compared to these references, move at much higher speeds. We also can see that with atomic clocks; two perfectly synchronized atomic clocks are produced. One is put on the ground and one on top of a fast-moving plane (or even an Orbiter). After a few hours in which the plane is in fast movement, the clocks are compared. The moving clock will be slower than the clock taht was, comparatively, at rest. Welcome to relativity. No, not really. Time *DOES* move to the moving person, it just moves slower *COMPARED* to teh rest frame. That would mean that if you, the moving person, went through 10 years of riding the rocket, I thought you went for 15. That does not mean you didn't notice the 10 years,does it? If you want criosleep, you need to make a way to produce criosleep. The people in the moving ship will still experience time. Slower, maybe, comparatively, but they will experience it, and they will not notice that their time is comparitively slower. They will think they're moving regularly, and the rest-frame is the one in which people are frantically moving around quicker. Extremely unrealistic, but okay. (you're lacking a system for this. The system you offered ;'till now -- fast movement, relativity style -- will *not* produce this number. Not even close). You're lacking a method for this. Theoretically,though, if you are moving fast enough it is, theoretically, possible, to experience very little time in your moving frame while a long time has passed in the rest-frame. There are a few problems with this, too, including how you could make anything move from rest-frame (so we can 'board it') to extreme speeds (so time can "slow down" enough fro you to get this high effect) in such a short period of time (minute?). As it stands, such acceleration would rip the human body to shreds. But, I'll ignore that "tiny" detail for now. Theoretically, relativity states that time is relative in different frames of reference. You could, theoretically, move forward in time (you already are moving forward in time, with a relation of 1:1 minutes) if you board a fast rocket. That doesn't make time not affect E=mc^2. Or light move in one direction only. K, just a tip here: a Fact is a fact, it's not "if i'm not misled, it's a fact". If you start something with "If.." then it's not a fact, it's a premise or a hypothesis. As it stands, yours is extremely weird. Your entire post speaks of a certain issue and then the "fact" at the end is a completely different issue. You are correct that in different speeds we have corrections for time (GPS satellites are DEPENDENT on General Relativity), but from this assumption to a decision that it would be precisely 3 seconds.. well.. I don't quite see how that follows. If you want to give us a number, you need to include your mathematical method of arriving to such a number. As it is, your number seems WAAAAY too high to me, but I'm willing to examine your calculations and see if my "gut" feeling is wrong. Produce the calculations, though, otherwise your 3-second-guess is nothing but a guess, and an unfounded one. You also have some problems with your logic in this thread. You go from the (wrong) premise that time has no effect on E=mc^2 to the idea that light is moving in one direction, to an idea that we can move back in time if we go very slow, to the idea that we can move forward in time if we move very fast, to a conclusion that we have a discrepency of 3 seconds in our satellites. How does that follow? ~moo

throng, mostly constants are defined to make our lives easier. Instead of writing 3.14159265 repeatedly, we write "pi". Instead of writing 299,792,458 m/s repeatedly, we write "c". Instead of writing 8.854 x 10^(-12) repeatedly, we write "epsilon naught". Only later do we analyze when, where, why and how these constants are constants. Your question is, therefore, ill defined. If you're talking about constants in general, what "makes them" is our own definition, to save ourselves repeated numerical typing. If your question is why, or why not, the speed of light is relative, or, alternatively, whether the speed of light should be considered constant - then you need to rephrase your question.

Well, you're old enough to drink.

I think that time frame is a bit optimistic for a ship that can survey the solar system so quickly.. However, I don't think we're too far away from being able to design and build a ship that can travel (with people in it) on relatively long-term missions. If you look at how relatively fast things move in that aspect, it's quite impressive. The X-Plane, for instance, is a huge step forward. We're still lacking the ability to go to the height of the ISS (which isn't THAT far away) with a reusable plane, but the X-Plane gives us much hope.. it manages to get to about 400 km above ground while taking off almost-like-a-plane (it takes off with the assistance of another plane) and land as a plane, horizontally, and be reused. The ride on it, too, is said to cost around $20,000 which sounds expensive, but if you consider the fact it's the first flight of its kind, it really isn't. How long did it take planes to drop in prices (and frequency, and occupancy) to a piont where anyone (almost) can travel easily all over the world with an affordable price? About 70 years? maybe less. So, I guess my point is that though the OP has quite a goal ahead (surveying the solar system in 70 years), the general goal of surveying parts of the solar system, imho, can be in our lifetimes. At least I hope so ~moo

Welcome back babe let the ydoapsmartassness resume!

Votlman, what do you think the pros and cons are? Do you have an example for one or two? If you give us a start for this, we can help you out with formulating the arguments. As it goes, we would rather not answer your homework for you, but rather help you out. Also, I recommend you read a bit about stem cell research and pick one aspect of it to argue -- it is a HUGE subject, so it will be very hard to argue either position if you don't narrow it down a bit... Give us a bit more specific perspective and some of YOUR work on it, and we will be happy to help out! ~moo

Duplicate threads merged. Please try to avoid posting double threads on the same topic.

This page is talking specifically about geology, which isn't my field, so I will need to wait for someone more qualified to answer those specific claims. (I will avoid getting into some of the non-geological reasons we know the earth did not expand, for the sake of discussion) But there's one thing that jumped as weird to me, and I'm unsure about this: As far as I know, subduction is not equalled to the crust generated at all. In fact, we know that some mountains' heights increase through the years because of the idea that the subducted volume is NOT equalling the amount that is created. The 'extra' amount of crust creates 'folds' in the crust: mountains. I am looking through the net for some resources I remember but it might take me a bit to find them, as - again - geology isn't my field. That particular comment, though, caught my eye and I had to put this out there. ~moo

"The Amazing Meeting" in Las Vegas. Well worth it http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/445-the-amazing-meeting-7.html

Yup, true, I didn't think about it.

I might be missing something here, but moment of inertia is well defined to be dependent on both radius and mass: [math]I=\int r^2 dm[/math] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia#Definition) So if you're taking two bodies with the same mass and radius, how could they have different moments of inertia?

There was supposed to be a note in the other forum about the thread being moved. If it didn't appear, it was probably some technical glitch. In any case, it's all sorted out now.. so you the debate can continue uninterrupted. Enjoy! ~moo

Threads merged. ABV, please stick to this thread with your hypotheses on the same subject. Also, take into account that there's a reason D H is considered "Expert", and that reason isn't merely us playing around with user titles. Please avoid spamming the forum and stick to one thread per theory.

This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open. Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open. If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy. All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track. This post is a standard text set by SFN policy.

precisely! only not for UFOs, and for actual science.

I was thinking about making some centralized place for observations, where people can note the time and place they noted something (even not something too unique.. just.. a shooting star, or venus in a certain shape, etc) with a picture or a description.. then, this info can be cross-referenced with other people around the world, so you can learn what it is you saw and if other people shared your view that night from different angles around the world. That's why I was curious about whether this information is shared. If you see a fireball, I imagine that at some point it gets quite an exposure online in blogs and sites, but wouldn't it be easier if there was one place to report these things and corss-reference the images and descriptions? Just a thought.

So it's just local societies all over the world? Do these societies collaborate through some medium? My point is -- what if some major observation is spotted in multiple locations around the world? How can we get the best and most information about it if anyone reports it to their local branch only?

Perfect Also, please note - the Pseudoscience / Speculations forum isn't some punishment zone that "non acomplished" theories go to. It is merely the place for people to argue the validity of their theory, speculate on different applications of it, and perhaps justify it being back in mainstream forum. The fact this thread is in pseudoscience/spec doesn't make it any less worthy of debate. Of course, if the question was posed differently and in a way that does fit current science, then by all means, the other thread is yet another venue for this discussion. ~moo

Off topic discussion was moved to the Pseudoscience/Speculation forum. Please keep this on topic.

Off topic speculative pseudophysics subject moved to its own thread in pseudoscience and speculation forum, at least until it is proven to fit back into mainstream general physics forum. Please keep it here. ~moo

Uhm.. Masturbation is purely for pleasure.. it might have some physiological benefits as well, but definitely nothing that involves replacing sexuality or replication of dna/rna, because you're pretty much wasting your "stuff". If you're looking for a replacement for an orgasm, it's one thing. If you're looking for a replacement for actual sexual reproduction, it's absolutely another.. ?? I lost you, man. You're mixing so many subjects here I don't know what the topic you want to discuss is anymore. How can any of these disturb research in genetics?

Oh, yes.. Sure.. here, let me demonstrate--