JTM³

From the Stark Encyclopedia:

Anyone else?

Did anyone see this on the science channel? What do you guys think about dark matter/dark engergy? From what I've seen at least on the quantum mehcanics board, you guys don't seem to like String Theory too much... I'd really appreciate your input! Thanks, LC

Oh, true, but I meant more like the "big" crystals on Stargate and such. Like the crystals in the DHD and such. Is there any scientific truth to that?

I thought I heard once that crystals might be used for memory storage and such? They use crystals on Stargate and such, but aside from New Age junk, are there any qualities of crystals that could make them good for computing? Like crystal motherboards or memory, or crystaline chips? Thanks, LC

Maybe Matthews does have a point; but speaking of religious cults, this jerk sounds like Hank Hannegraff and other so-called "heresy hunters." Scientists really are a rowdy bunch... I suppose the science channel is Satan's media outlet?

From my other post in the General section. Sorry to put it here again but it hasn't gotten any replies and I'd really like to know.... Thanks for understanding

Did anyone watch the national geographic channel special on lightning? What did you guys think of the ball lightning part? Was it all hype or could there be some new physics there?

What's wrong with infinities?? Who doesn't like infinity? Cute little furry things... Buzz Lightyear did LOL:-p Sorry I couldn't help myself...(ok well I could've it just wouldn't have been as much fun )

What's wrong with danger?

Perhaps the plasma repels off the ground and the board or whatever you want to make hover repels off the plasma

Is it just me or can scientists be a bit of a testy crowd???

Are there any other ways of extracting zero point energy? The only one I've heard of is that cassimir effect thing, which is pretty much useless because the plates can't be unstuck. So will this ever be a viable energy source? Does science hint at a "subspace" star trek like dimension? If there was another dimension or if we could intereact with a universe made of energy (according to string theory's multiple universe/dimensions), if we use as much energy as we extract, would that bypass the laws of conservation, which says you can't "create" new energy? I'm no expert of course, so please correct me if there's anything wrong in that description.

Now we just need to extend the range a "bit"

From wikipedia: I was just wondering if this really has any scientific merit....

Not sure where to place this, sorry...... Anyone seen this?

Indeed-science 'ficition'. Sometimes I this universe........ But, if the alternative is the Borg threat, than I personally hope aliens don't exist As for string theory, than that requiers that there be alternate dimensions (if we assume string thoery to be correct). Therefore, assuming string theory is correct, could you have a universe as whacked out as something in Star Trek? Or Stargate? And I know about potential energy and such...as for it not being glowy, what about lightning, that's glowy..... ,

Ok, I used the search funtion, and this hasn't been posted before. Just a few comments/questions about scifi tech. On Warp Drive: The DK Space Encyclopeida talks about Star Trek and 'antimatter engines' as being rocket like. This is not explicitly stated but it is implied; as that's the only conclusion, at least in my eyes. Disambiguation: From what I understand, this is the process of warp as used by the Enterprise:

I'm no expert-but if black holes are formed from collapsing matter (giant stars), what in the world do they have to do with strings!? And according to Stephen Hawking they eventually evaporate.....

Hi; I was recently something on the science channel about Einstein's life. It talked about the General Theory of Relativity in a way I had never heard before; now, I've seen that program before but I didn't catch that part I guess... It said that Genearl Relativity in effect made the force of gravity an illusion; I have known about the comparison between gravity and a rubber sheet (gravity/spacetime, one of those..) for a long time, but I never knew that gravity is now an illusion; the cause of an object moving through warped spacetime. I might've left something out or said that wrong because I don't recall the exact deatails. So my question is (other than "did I get that summary right?") is, armed with that concept, is it now possible (at least for people far smarter than I ) to work on a device to warp spacetime the other way? Hence, antigravity? However, after thinking on that, we have two possibilities (both could be wrong of course): 1) this way of thinking about gravity opens up new possibiltities for reasearch, 2) Cool to think about, but it doesn't really get us anywhere..."antigravity" particles/fields would have the described effect, rendering my "philosophy" for lack of a better term pointless....... So I was wondering what you guys thought Thanks.. (Not sure if this is the right sub-forum; quantum mechanics or relativity; oh well...)