wilgory

This is not new. I've used them for more than 10 years, and have never used the leaded type. They need slightly more heat to melt but a propane torch is plenty hot. If you don't have a lot of experience then you shouldn't use anything hotter. If you clean and flux both the fittings and the pipe there should be no problem with leaks. Apply solder to the side opposite the heat until you get a drip or two. Wipe the hot solder with a clean cloth to ensure an even and clean connection and to remove the excess flux. I've never heard anything about the strength being better or worse than the leaded solder. I prefer tinning flux that has solder in it. By pretinning the connection it seems to draw the solder in more effectively. If you have questions about what I've posted or if you want more complete instructions I'll be glad to answer. wilgory

dstebbins, Understandable does not mean that it is easy. The links I have provided, take you to the sites I found that helped me in my understanding. It did not happen immediately! If you follow the links on those sites you will find more than enough information. Did you know, that on wikipedia, you can click on the colored words and you will be taken to the definitions or explanations of those words/phrases. There are also links to more sites at the end of the wiki articles. I think maybe you should spend more time considering the information and not just say "I don't get it". General Relativity is counter-intuitive, you are going to have to change the way you think about the world. I have said it took me a long time. It may take you a long time as well. You may have to read the descriptions of the way mass warps space-time many times, and then spend a lot of time thinking about it. Surf the net for the Einstein thought experiments and STUDY THEM! It was some of the most interesting reading I have ever done. After you have learned enough to ask some specific questions, post them and maybe someone on this forum will answer them. I will be glad to, if I can. GOOD LUCK Wilgory

dstebbins, I am an interested enthusiast, not a cosmologist.The point I was trying to make about needing non-euclidean math was that it is nearly impossible to grasp this stuff visually. The best minds will find it very difficult, even with the math. I have only a basic understanding of the basic principles. The only other advice I might give is try a google search for EINSTEIN THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS. The wikipedia article Introduction to General Relativity is on an entry level. I remember seeing a website called "Relativity for Kids" or something like that. It may give you a more simplified version. You may be looking for answers to questions that there are no simple answers for, or no answers at all.

I don't think I can do any better than this. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/gravity.html You are trying to visualize something than might be impossible unless you have a mind similar to Einstein's. Try to visualize this. In non-euclidean geometry the closest distance between 2 points is not a straight line. Then consider that you have to visualize a 4 dimensional warp, when all you know is 3 dimensional. That's why the only way to understand gravity is to learn the math. Do not be discouraged. There are many people on this forum that are much better than I at explaining these things. Hopefully some will help you grasp these idea's. It took me years to get where I'm at in understanding what we "know" about the universe. The Internet helped me immensely. For years I had to rely on books where it was impossible to ask questions. All the luck on your search for understanding, Wilgory

dstebbins, In General Relativity, gravity is nothing more than the warping of space-time. No other particles or energies or forces involved. The bowling ball on a trampoline analogy is 2 dimensional, with a fabric being distorted. Gravity is a 4 dimensional warping of space-time without any fabric involved. General Relativity is not easily comprehended without knowing some non-euclidean geometry (my understanding is limited because I do not know more than the basics), but if you want to understand gravity you need to learn enough to understand General Relativity. This is a link to a site with some diagrams that may help. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

dstebbins, Here are some links to some good sites. Due to the size, use the search feature on the NASA site to find the subject you want. As far as visuals go, you will find some on these sites, but relativity is better understood using math. My math isn't that good so I do the best I can by reading.There are some visuals on these pages and links to more.You can google something like "general relativity visual tutorial" and find many more. http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/ http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.nasa.gov/ http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Expo/cosmos_nav.html

dstebbins, In general relativity (GR), it is mass that warps space-time, not gravity. Gravity is the result. Perhaps you should reread the article or better yet go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity In a vacuum,on earth, an object "apparently" accelerates in freefall at 22 ft per second/per second. In GR motion is relative and when an object is being held up by a table or something it is "actually" accelerating with respect to freefall. Freefall is the natural state (following the curvature of space-time caused by the mass of the earth). As Klaynos said GR is complex and I am not an expert, just an interested layman. The link above is a good place to start but you should not accept it as the final authority.The web has many sites dealing with GR to varying degrees.

I got this from the nasa site. It seems to settle the "age" question. What do you guys think? http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/news-release/releases/2002/h02-73.htm

Yeah, That too!

Does the same side of the moon always face the sun? If not, then it can be said that the moon rotates in relation to the sun.

I would buy a farm, grow enough fresh vegetables and fruit for freinds and family. Raise chickens and pigs. Ride my bicycle, repair and build bikes to my hearts content. Read books, surf the net, watch the news and weather,and with the rest of my time I would contemplate the wonders.

I found out about GPB on the NASA website. After following the experiment for the past couple of years, I can hardly wait for the results. It seems the final report has been delayed, but in mid april a preliminary report will be available. Go to the Stanford website and search. I figure the results will probably confirm Einstein. It would be far more interesting if they conflicted with relativity somehow. It could then possibly lead to a breakthrough. A better understanding of how we could proceed to unravel the mysteries of space and time. I am curious how an unexpected result might affect current models of the universe. If anyone could speculate(in laymens terms) what effects a different than expected result might have. Their comments would be greatly appreciated. I was very surprised when this was the only thread I could find concerning GPB.

To Nobody in particular, Imagine Ptolemy talking to a group of fellow "scientists". He tells them that he's working on a geocentric universe hypothesis. After much discussion, one well respected member of the group leans over to another and says "That Ptolemy, he is such a crackpot". Get the picture? Is someone's crackpottedness relative? (chuckle here) I may be a real crackpot. That's for others to decide. If, however, I am. I want to know. Although I will not accept opinion as fact. It would be a mistake to consider my desire for simplicity (things are complicated enough), my lack of proper grammar, and ignorance concerning the more complicated levels of math, as a lack of intelligence. I'm smart enough to leave the heavy lifting to the big boys. As far as why I posted my "speculation". 1. I understood this to be a public forum. If it is meant to be otherwise, then a statement on the homepage would have been beneficial. The search message mentioned earlier would undoubtedly help. 2. If while reading I have a question, I can't query the book for clarity. 3. No social network where I can discuss the subjects I prefer. 4. I have searched the internet and not found anything specific to my query. 5. I am somewhat lazy when it comes to pursuing wealth and fame. Not when searching for understanding. I doubt if many people will go to the library to understand what's wrong with their car. When a trip to the local garage is far more likely to get to the heart of the problem.

A statement by a schizophrenic psychology student: I think, therefore we are. Sorry this is so lame. It's an original (I think).

Edtharan, Thanks for the clarification. I never intended to imply only direct observation. Future references to observation will mean all valid observation. ESP will remain suspect. To all, While I'm not sure of any of this, here is my position:There are limits to our ability to observe our universe. Some are recognized by current theories. Limit #1- apriori - In relativity, this is the inability to define space, time and mass. An example would be trying to observe beyond our space-time continuim. This deadend is a roadblock that is infinite and inpenetrable. Limit#2- The Uncertainty Principle - In quantum physics and well beyond me. It does seem that it is a limit to further investigation just by it's nature. Maybe we can think of this as the end of the road. Not blocked but nowhere to go. Limit#3- The speed of light - This somewhat limits us to observations within our local observable universe. The road leads on but it gets bumpy and slow. Limit#4- Blackholes, dark matter, and dark energy - These I will call "obstructions" not completely observable. This leads me to wonder about possible connections to the other "limits". On the road to the theory of everything this would be a traffic jam backed up so far we can't see the cause. This post is an attempt to clarify my thoughts. I expect criticism, preferably constructive. Lacking that, humourous will still be appreciated. If neither of these can be found. Let's not waste our time.

Greetings to all, Thanks for the enlightenment. Edtharan, Can your position be stated: We know all there is to know about Time and the higher dimensions.? Farsight, Is this also your position? I wonder, do both the actions of a clock, and the timeshift while traveling near lightspeed, display both the dimensionaity aspect and the change aspect of time? Are there other aspects of the dimesionality of time, or other aspects besides change, that we do not percieve or wrongly percieve? Such as blackholes, dark matter, dark energy, etc.? Yesterday I watched a presentation, given by James E. Peebles of U.C., on the large scale structure of the universe. He would not state that blackholes exist. Are what we thougt of as blackholes really brownholes radiating electromagnetic feilds. This is beyond me. I thought it had been concluded that blackholes do exist. I'm not looking for a disscusion on blackholes. I'll go to the BH threads for that. I would appreciate any comments on wether we are or aren't fully percieving the higher dimension(s). The less complicated the better for me, even a simple yea or nay, but all are very welcome.

Edtharan, I followed this as well as my 3D mind would allow.I understand this to be the view of time expressed in relativity. The problem I have is the different view of time expressed by quantum physics seems equally plausable. Are both right? Are both wrong? Are both right and wrong? If both are right, then the very large and the very small can not be reconciled. Any other combination of right and wrong leaves room for modification or reconciliation. I see alot of this polarization of thought in our civilization, I suspect human pride is the root. My hope is we can find ways of reconciling more than this "time" delimma. But I don't have much hope.

Again, I appologize for that. It was both, a poor attempt at humor, and a plea for more involvement by others in this thread. Have you read anything on Lee Smolin's new book,The Trouble With Physics. I've ckecked out his website and it seems to me that his is willing to try and step back to get a better look at both theories, relativity and quantum physics. I intend to purchase the book a.s.a.p. I'll post my thoughts when I have read it.

YT, Sorry, I should not have included, in my post, a greeting, an honest statement about my cofusion, and the awful attempts at humor. When I questioned your statement that 1D without time can go on forever. I pointed to my confusion about forerver. Farsight, you assume that I did not read your thread. False. furthermore I read the previous thread. In the second one you start off calling the two that said they had read your post liars. I fail to see how this is condusive to effective dicussion. Back to Time. In relativity, space and time are considered dementional, and undefined. It is a priori.I found 3 definitions for "a priori", all boil down to, no facts, no experience, no examination, and no factual study. In quantum physics, space and time are separate.Time is considered not to be a demension, it represents change. Futher investigation leads me into philosophy. To me there seems to be a problem with understanding time. I can not see much hope for a theory of everything, without some reconciliation of these two differing views of time. Once again, I have no theories, just this concern about the possibility of ever understanding space-time, or space and time.

HI Everyone, Looks like this "time" problem is a big can of worms. I'm trying to gather my thoughts, but I don't have alot of time currently. After a short TIME browsing wikipedia, one thought came to mind. Can it be stated that, a priori = the limit at which we can no longer observe/investigate the time-space that we exsist in. I don't know if this makes any sense to anyone else, like i said' i'm trying to gather my thoughts. It may be a while before I post, "I WILL BE BACK". I like to think that I'm stirring that can of worms. Thanks to all, P.S. This is a "call for help"!

YT, Thanks for indulging me, I do appreciate your TIME and thoughts. As for 1D, let me try this, if time is connected so closely to space, can we still have Space for any dimension without time. I understood space and time to be inseperable. Can we take lenght, width, or height out of space? Other than that, it sounds like we agree, we don't know enough about the higher dimensions. I am not trying to argue or debate, not enough smarts for that, just trying to expand my understanding.

In a 1D world, would "forever" be considered a concept of, or an aspect of, time? In a 2D world, I agree. In a 3D world, Clocks, time shift, ?. In a 4D world, ???.

HI, Having attended a college of aeronautics I can tell you there are 2 factors needed for flight. Not float but to take off. First, lift must overcome weight, the airflow over the wing needs to be suffient to produce enough lift. Second, thrust must overcome drag. The plane needs to be propelled forward. Since the plane is allowed to be powered by an engine, prop or jet doesn't matter. When enough force is applied by the engine to do these two things the plane will take off(fly). I hope this helps. Wilgory

Hi, YT. I'm glad you have it all figured out. Please help me out. Elaborate. In other words, how do you "know". Thanks for the reply, Wilgory

I never stated that we can't percieve time.The idea is that we can't fully percieve time. I see the hands of a clock move, that's the most common. The time shift due to acceleration is another aspect of time that is observable. Are there more? I'm sure the well educated, on this forum, know of more. Do they know all of them? I think we can learn/percieve more through math. Can we truly expect to percieve all of time since it is a higher dimension? What about the theorizied dimensions beyound that? All I can say is "good luck". Don't get me wrong. I want to understand our universe. I am not educated enough to comprehend the math, but I follow the research and I hope we can eventually understand "all" . It's just I am begining to doubt that we, as 3D beings, can. Thanks for the reply, Wilgory