elfin vampire

the word "Vacuum" applies most perfectly to space Neither in Cosmology nor theoretical Astrophysics. after reading your diatribe of nonsense/insults and poorly interpreted data Presumably you view quotes of published Relativity/Universities/Science Journals insulting and their findings in err due to poorly interpereted data. Or perhaps you find that I am misinterpereting these publications in order to challenge a standing based upon the fact that you have simply not read them. I find myself wondering what you goal is here? To open doors for enquiring minds, including my own and perhaps learn something of personal value along the way. To interact with others whose interests genuinely lay with science. Yours Sir, appear to me to be rather more Freudian. I/we made our case perfectly clear And finally we have it. You here claim to be representative of an establishment in your standing with this plain example of gross misjudgement regarding the theorum of various fields in science. You are no more than a signed member to a private website and this furthers your scientific and educational qualifications exactly: not in the slightest. That your statement is representative of site administration, it is also therefore a statement of ineptly qualified site administration (to be making claims regarding established scientific theorum without appropriate reference). how dare you patronise him!!! How dare you dare to dare that I dare. and outer space IS a Vacuum! And, I`m also a very GOOD Moderator This speaks for itself. I do very much dislike arrogance however! Perhaps sir, you would injure yourself less if you were not so arrogant. Please feel free to delete my membership at any time.

feel free to differ with me and the rest of established Science, that IS your perrogative Since I've restrained myself to quoting from published and established astrophysicists and you have been expressing your opinions I shall assume that a correction of your sentence feel free to differ with me or the rest of established Science.. would be more accurate. As I've repeatedly stated my sources of these statements, including the provision of links to where they can be read in original form, I should reiterate that far from being related to my own physical experimentation and calculus these are the statements of the established scientific community of which you speak, albeit in the media of worldwide scientific journal and established physics theorum publication in the field of astrophysics, rather than students' textbooks of (reportedly, largely Newtonian) engineering and other curriculum. I regularly cut and paste quotes from the 1920 publication Special and General Relativity, Albert Einstein, the 1920 publication General Relativity and the Ether, Albert Einstein and a variety of university publications as I feel a great deal of original premise has been largely forgotten by students of contemporary curriculums, often orientated more to the geometry and mathematics than the physical reality of what has been entailed. I was shocked to find a BSc about to embark upon his Masters in physics appreciate GR as no more than geometry, with little or no appreciation of what that geometry defined in a physical sense. This was an instance which found him intellectually contradicting his own agreed calculus and leaving him to discredit a fundamental theorum of the very foundations of contemporary physics, where no contradiction to the actual theorum existed. As I have little or no interest in going back over the same gound already covered, any details you are uncertain about I should be happy to continue to provide the links to. I can alternatively provide the links to the thread within the science forum, entitled: Theorum of Relativity if you should so prefer. It is of general interest as several comments are provided by relatively elderly and rather highly qualified patrons of the field. Perhaps you should like to gloss over the UCLA online tutorial upon cosmology and relativity. I point your particular attention to the sentence which contains the following phrase: A simpler tutorial is also online and has some wonderful little animations, perhaps you'd like to look that up. It also states matters precisely as I have, the author a holder of a doctorate on the subject. It's titled "Spacetime 101." Or perhaps you are quite happy to sit down with an inexpansive library and detract inquisitive students from contemporary astrophysics? it`s a Vacuum, and describing outer space as a vacuum is quite accurate. nowhere in the deffinition did it preclude stong or weak nuclear forces, nor did it state that it was an impassable media. It is incorrect to think of space as a vacuum. Moreover, in simple answer to the topic posting within the context of the question: indeed space is not a vacuum at all. (why couldn't you just have said that to the poor kid?) Nevertheless. Furthermore not only is this established among astrophysicists in the company of Max Planck, it is also clearly observable in nature, as the topic poster had correctly noticed (somewhat a little more inspired than yourself on the subject I should think).

..and it will expand forever. Far from having an interest in contradiction (re: endless expansion caused by rate of expansion overcoming gravity/combined presence of matter in the universe), I simply wish to state the inspiring nature of what we don't yet know about astrophysics, yet infer through our observations. As much as any other, we are ourselves born into exciting times...

Wow. Now that's disturbing!

It is a plain observation that your interest here is in arguing a point which is both detractful and utterly inconsiderate to the original topic posting. Should we continue this argument in the engineering forums I would respectfully differ to you upon this. However in this instance you are wrong.

No, it is the call of centuries of astronomers and astrophysicists. The definition of vacuum simply does not describe "space" in any context whatsoever, as I am being commanded to become so literal. Firstly, since the discovery of the CBR it has been universally recognised that "space" is a gas of diffuse photons, remnant of the BB. Due to measurements taken from NASA spacecraft, it has been estimated that interstellar space contains at worst, one atom of matter per square metre. Nebulae of 2nd generation proto-star creation contains heavy elements, including those which comprise air. Respectfully.

and in addition to Sayos argument, the fact that we can see stars is also a clear indication that "Space" is largley void of particulate matter, a single spec of dust from every 10 kms would render even our nearest neighboring star 4.7 light years away, invisible Interstellar dust causes light defraction. In fact we can use spectral analysis to discover the composition of interstellar dust clouds by the absorption lines in light from stars shining through them. The fact that we can see stars at all is significant that space-time must be a quantifiable body itself to allow for the propogation of light. It must be a significant medium rather than a 'nothingness,' hence the validity of the original topic posting. According to established physics, "space" has an inherant dynamic to it and that is gravitation. Time-space itself is compositional to physical matter and the measurable CBR of "space" is enough to cause 'drag' in propositional interstellar craft as increasing speeds are attained. In terms of theoretical physics, in this instance a vacuum is most incorrect indeed. This is the Physics-Astronomical Sciences/Cosmology forum, is it not?

Since space-time is a body sir, were the universe 100 billion light-years across its relative density would be incomprehensibly positive. However I fully appreciate your position that water-ice is cold to the touch and a day of 30 degrees celcius is rather warm indeed. However it is a standing which does not account for herefore unattributed dynamics of space-time in a physical sense. I refer you to the original topic posting: as i am new to this forum hi everyone, i have a question. it seems that SPACE has properties, it can be distorted by gravity,and recently discovered frame dragging,it also has the properties of capacitance, inductance and impedance, if this is correct then discribing space as the" vacuum" cannot be correct so what is it????

Two things happen to a prospective astronaught entering a Black Hole. Tidal forces and time dilation. They would fall into the singularity at a normal rate however for the crew of an observing spacecraft they would appear to hover at the event horizon for eternity. Plus as they got closer to that point, there would be an increasing redshift to the light emitted by them (reflectively), as it fought against the increasingly powerful gravitation. With Supermassive Black Holes (10 million solar masses or greater) the spaghettification is not enough to kill due to the more gradual increase of tidal forces. In three-dimensional terms of physical bodies, gravity is more a gathering and twisting of space. A dip would be two-dimensional terms. It becomes thoroughly intriguing in 4th-dimensional terms (time-space curvature).

Albert Einstein clarified the position of Relativity in regards to nature of the vacuo for the third time in this transcript of a 1920 paper delivered to the University of Leydon. http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html An excellent, simple explaination of space-time, as understood at this time within established physics can be found here: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/st101.html All youthful imagination aside, it would be utterly incorrect in physics theorum to describe 'space' as a vacuum, devoid of matter and dynamic in any context other than relative to humans considering EVA. Although a weak-force, according to physics space-time itself is most certainly a dynamic and yes, its physical composition would be the "gas of diffuse photons" which comprise the CBR. According to astrophysicists published in England's New Scientist journal, the correct definition of space is a plasma. This is also my position on the matter. According to every physicist from Newton to Einstein inclusive and their contemporaries, including Max Planck whether considered the vacuo nevertheless time-space is an ether. Only among students, journalists and hobbyists is space considered a vacuum. What I find curious is the henceforth properties then attributed to it without the individual process of arriving at logical conclusion. Come on...you know who you are.

"Folding space" is a term which describes 'wormholes.' Wormholes as a means for space travel were invented by a man named Kip Thorne in 1985, who had been asked by astronomer Carl Sagan to help with his novel Contact (made into a movie starring Jodie Foster). It is a geometrically valid observation which is discounted only by the fact that nothing in physics infers wormholes as such, hence it may be argued to have a place in theoretical physics of equal validity that it does to science fiction. I've seen the movie Event Horizon myself (and found it exceedingly enjoyable), in which a singularity is generated aboard a starship using an enormously powerful, gravimetric field. Although designed to travel vast distances of space via 'wormhole' creation, what had in fact had necessarily happened was a tremendous distortion in space-time relative to a massive gravitational body. Thus it would appear to have dealt more with time displacement relative to space (and potential psychological results to proximate humans), perhaps achieving the travel of vast distances in this manner. A Schwarzschild (non-spinning or static) black hole is the description of a singularity point, such as that hypothetically produced in the movie. Around this point, at a radius of R=2GM/c^2 (where M is the simulated mass of the singularity), no light would escape, thus making the vessel itself disappear, apparently winking into "hyperspace" and taking its passengers into another 'time dimension.'

Since a large asteroid smashed into the Yucatan Peninsula during the time of the dinosaurs, is it possible a good chunk of a dinosaur got tossed up into space and is floating around freeze dried? Maybe a large bone full of marrow could have made it up or some water critters. Now THIS I LIKE! Embarressingly the lunar missions returned microbes which had been taken from Earth, mistakenly by the astronaughts, survived the journey and the moonlandings, plus their return back to Earth so there is little or no doubt some degree of genetic materiel could survive the most extreme circumstances. Could a Yucatan sized cometary collision send ejecta into space? Almost certainly. Several Martian meteorites have been located by scientists in Antarctica, some locations considered relative 'fields' where one can simply walk along and pick up a million year old piece of martian crust. These have arrived due to the ejecta of asteroidal collisions upon Mars similar to the Yucatan event and travelled all the way through space to then arrive as meteors themselves, upon Earth. The identification of the potential for fossilized, primordeal Martian bacterial 'skeletons' a few years ago, beginning a new contraversy for the potential of life on Mars came from one such meteorite. It is entirely possible that Jurassic genetic materiel is floating about space. And I'd never thought of it before now. Good science!

The tiny, swimming sparks one sometimes sees is an effect known as 'phosphenes' and is caused by background firing within the optic nerve. From memory this is assumed to be related to high blood pressure, such as that associated with exercise however is still somewhat of a mystery as they can also appear to those whom are at rest and perfectly relaxed. Ultimately it is not considered to signify any real medical issue, however is a perfecty normal function of the optical nerve. Certainly the medical students whom may browse the forum should have much more information about it, as mine was gleaned from an MD/BSc from a popular Australian, on-air science forum.

As a medical issue, doctors and surgeons will secure CAT scans to determine whether brain function is relatively typical (in relation to genuine cases, apparently alot of individuals they encounter tend to have a psychological condition of being predisposed to a psychiatric illness). It should be reminded that whilst psychology is a human behavioral science, psychiatry deals with the medical health of one's brain function and its relationship with mental state. Neurosurgeons and psychiatrists are probably the best contemporary experts you'll find on this subject. Just with anything involving your health: always shop around and always get second opinions. Anyway, from your description I wouldn't just pass it off. You may be on to something valuable, you never know. Give me updates, I'm interested in knowing how it turns out.

Thanks. Haven't mastered the art of hosting links on your site yet so I guess I'll have to just post and let you do your jobs. However if you'd like to make me a moderator or administrator I'd be happy to oblige with a greater degree of forum organisation. Think of it this way. What fun would it be being mod/admin. if nobody ever gave you anything to do? If I can't figure out how to do that post-link thingy I'll PM one of you anyway, how's that sound?

Well I did try to hold back on lightsabres

There is a reason physical matter is called 'electrodynamic bodies' and that is because in physics it is composed of: a) electricity b) gravitation, a dynamic of space-time Ultimately the direction you're headed should arrive at electric transportation such as the Japanese bullet-trains. With gravity, if you have a large amount of mass it creates gravity. Mass and gravitation are dynamics associated with bodies of matter. They are provided by space-time and the existence of electricity. As has been mentioned there is a little presented confusion between cause and effect and the composition of physical matter. If you have a large astronomical body for example, its presence denotes gravity. However far from causing gravity, it is in part composed of gravity.

If ebola was capable of considering self preservation, it would not utterly destroy its host. And this is different to humans how? From social to technological to ecological environments it is plain observation to note that humans wantonly destroy their host at every available opportunity. This is the very nature of life, from bacterial building blocks, to dinosaurs and other complex life forms. To live: you destroy. Apparently however, we do it by choice. Well I think that when it is still attached to the mother, and totally dependant, it's not a seperate life yet. If you could take it out and have no problems, then it's a person. That's a wholly political statement, as I mentioned was the only inherant course to this thread. As such it has no scientific value whatsoever. So why did life start in the first place? Second generation star formation allowed for a proto-plasmic disc containing heavy elements, from which planets accrued their varying compositions, at their varying locations. The presence of the planet Jupiter and accumilation of water ice upon Earth allowed for life to evolve, which is an inherant process based upon these environmental conditions. Thus has been observed in nature and is considered an established physics theorum at this time. The only reasonable place for an abortion thread is in a medical forum.

Of course, there is evidence to prove that something VERY intelligent was on earth when they made the henges. They are arranged in a goemetric pattern hard to create without seeing it from the air. And in Chile there are the Nazca lines across the desert that would be REALLY hard to make without a flying machine. Yes. Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been present for something like 100,000 years now. An interesting postulation might be how you might have made these monuments. If you were transported to that technological level (remember technological and not intellectual level: same relative brain cavity), and given say, unlimited resources. How might you make something such as these (say it was some religious or sociological requirement)? I mean we can make computers and such these days, you can make a big calendar, can't you? Perhaps as impressive is late medieval star charts. You know people like Tycho Brae stared up at the sky from their study window and with a length of lead and piece of paper, systematically marked each and evey single star and classified them. Now that's tenacity. etc.

Aircraft use altimeters (re: air pressure) and radar-altimeters (speak for themselves). I understand these work quite well.

There's no need to worry about time anomolies created by dimensional parallax when galavanting to distant human history, the Q-continuum will fix it all up. Just pack yourself a pipe and get out your smoking jacket and slippers...and enjoy the ride. What were we travelling in? Oh yes: the philosophy machine. Don't forget: it's very, very naughty to change the past.

1. Which flamer Matrix bashing site/thread/smarter person did you copy that from? 2. I didn't read the page because of the word Matrix, and whether you did or not, I don't know. 3. If you had any deductive abilities whatsoever you would have noticed that matrix.html was a synopses of a much longer paper which draws few parallels to the Matrix at all. 4. This subject is so much closer to the movie "The 13th Floor" (and in fact, that movie is based on this concept entirely, down to the nested realities) I am surprised anyone has even mentioned the Matrix at all. 5. By starting this thread I was promoting precisely shite and do not consider "but how will it benefit the gross profit of the makers of the matrix and other popular sci-fantasy flicks" before I say something. 6. The theory is as much a mathematical prediction as it is hypothesis. Go to the full paper and read through the equation. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2512

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2512

There's one strategic problem with biological warfare: controlling the environment. Most of that's dealt with the moment you move armed forces in.

There is no current model that has the universe's expansion accelerating then stopping. The topic posting is the contention of a new model. Then wouldn't the universe's rate of expansion eventually surpass the speed of light? Effectively it already has, within its own environment. The farthest so far observed astronomical object is a quasar which is 27 billion light-years distant. Yet the universe is only roughly 15 billion years old. Ultimately what this means is this quasar is moving away from Earth at faster than the speed of light. The only manner in which to account for this is a degree of redshift occuring due to the expansion of the universe. Thus it is possible due to the expansion of the universe for objects within the universe to move away from each other at speeds faster than light. Yes, however spacetime expanding at C is not a problem. Relativity is only violated when objects move through spacetime as fast or faster than light. Kinda like leaves floating on a flowing stream. The stream is flowing fast, but the leaves aren't actually moving through the water (generally speaking). As has been mentioned however, this does not violate relativity.