JohnF

But the mass of an object determines how it accelerates through this other dimension. So the planet is pushing 'upwards' on us. We are carried through this dimension with the planet. We still have our own gravity because we are also accelerating at a much smaller rate through this dimension.

What's the difference between the effect you feel at an acceleration of 1G and the force you feel on the ground? Maybe all objects are accelerating through an unknown dimension and what we feel is the effect of that acceleration. Objects attract each other because of a disturbance they create in this dimension.

So the clock you send to the distant planet that is moving away from you will be slower than the one kept here when it's returned. If you had swapped clocks with the other planet then swapped them back again, both clocks would be running slower than their synchronised counterparts that had been left at the origin. This would be because, as far as the control clocks were concerned, their travelling clocks would have been moving away from them at a significant speed for the period of separation. What I'm trying to envisage here is just the effect of speed on the clocks without having to take in to account the journey and acceleration. It is possible to think that on the distant planet time goes slower which would lead to the logical conclusion that from the point of view of the distant planet time here would go faster. But clearly this could not be the case. From both planets, time on the other planet would go slower.

Perhaps it's a limit imposed by the size of our brains. The distance the information has to travel determines how we perceive time. Maybe in small animals the perception of time runs at a higher rate. Your experience of time freezing could be a momentary glitch where information went to the wrong part of your brain; similar to what happens with Deja Vu.

I know it can't be done. But what if it could? You can't accelerate from zero to 1000 mile per hour in an instant. But if you could it would take exactly 1 hour to travel 1000 miles. There are two sets of calculations; one for the acceleration and one for the constant speed. So if you could place, in an instant, an atomic clock on such a distant planet and after a year or so retrieve it, in an instant, would it show the same time as any clock it had been synchronised to beforehand? And if not would it have gained or lost time?

That's what I thought. It's just the Twin Paradox always describes the return journey which makes it a little confusing. So if you could place, in an instant, an atomic clock on such a distant planet and after a year or so retrieve it, in an instant, it would show the same time as any clock it had been synchronised to beforehand?

Since the Universe is expanding is it reasonable to assume that somewhere out there, in another Galaxy, there is a planetary system that is moving away from us at a very high velocity? And if this is true, is it also correct to assume time is going slower there than it is here? By slower I mean in absolute terms not just relative to us observing it.

Well it stops my sneezes, when I remember to do it. This is something I heard once, don't remember where but it does work for me. So I now know it doesn't work for everyone, although I assumed it did. Are you sore now?

It's something you can try though Carol. The problem is remembering to do it just before you sneeze and trying not to look a fool in public

I understand how looking at a bright light can help bring a sneeze on, but how does slapping your thigh stop a sneeze?

Perhaps humans have DRM built in Scotty: The transporters broke Jim; he's stuck in the pattern buffer! Kirk: Use the one in cargo bay 4. Scotty: It's no use Cap'n; that ones a Sony, it only takes memory sticks.

If this is for in your house then isn't there a PC that is always in use when others are? The PC I am using now is nearly always on if there is anybody else that might want to use it or another one in the house. If I were to use gateway software I'd put it on this one. It doesn't place a significant load on a powerful PC anyway. Worst case would be that if my son wanted to use another PC in the house he would have to switch mine on first.

There was an episode where an extra Riker was created. I think his pattern was reflected back to the planet. He didn't know he was a copy though, he thought the buggers had just left him there http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68606.html Can you imagine the wage bill for Star Fleet if they didn't destroy the one that steps in the transporter.

System requirements for Wingate... http://www.zensoftware.co.uk/wingate/requirements.asp Like Klaynos says, you don't need much power to do it. It will need two network cards though.

Good episode that. See, it does work What made me think about it was that my seven year old son did a number of drawings showing how vehicles moved. He explained each one to me in great detail. He came to a drawing with an aeroplane and explained how you could tell it was flying because there were no wheels to see. Then he turned the page and showed me the wheels and explained how the aircraft landed on them. If he'd been a bit older I'd have probably got him to put his idea on here, so I did it instead. He may have got the idea from Thunderbirds though as we have all the episodes and he's watched them all. Sisyphus: PROS: *minor reduction in weight for aircraft Would require a proper assessment by an aircraft designer to evaluate this. It may be minor or it may be significant. I have no figures, do you? CONS: *hideously expensive upgrades to all airports, everywhere Introducing new road vehicles to airports? *aircraft that can't land anywhere without said upgrade No upgrade, just new aircraft at selected routes; see post 4. There's no need to take the wheels off an aircraft that has them. *one more major thing which can (and must not) go wrong in takeoffs and landings Valid point. Better cancel fly by wire then. This would come under risk analysis and would probably have some redundancy built in. Rather than three undercarriage units waiting for the aircraft there would be a fourth, backup unit too. I don't think it's worth it. But then are any of us on here qualified evaluate it? It all depends on how much is saved in aircraft manufacture, running and maintenance costs against costs to build remote undercarriage, maintain and operate them. This will give an idea of how much can be spent in development. Then a risk analysis is required to determine if the system will have any effect on aircraft and passenger losses. As per post 11 it may afford an opportunity to increase the aircraft strength. For example, it may be possible to build an aircraft that can stay afloat indefinitely since there would be no openings for the undercarriage. It would be better to think about the technical hurdles that have to be overcome. Accelerating the undercarriage units up to 180 knots in sufficient time; would a pre-runway would be needed? Maintaining position with the aircraft at speed; is radio used or an optical system? Could a fast moving undercarriage make adjustments at the same rate wind sheer and gusting could shift the aircrafts position?

Why would anyone get in to one of those things? I'm just going to kill myself so that a copy of me can explore that planet down there. Then he'll kill himself so that another copy can tell you all about it.

Hey, never mind the expense. We'll have one for every gate. Checked what the biggest wind tunnel is; it's at NASA's Ames Research Center and is 80 feet by 100 feet so perhaps the shared undercarriage is better until one of you totaly crushes the idea. By the way, it's a bit harsh comparing it to mid-air refueling. Two vehicles maintaining a relative position in an unstable three dimensional space, whilst keeping local pitch, roll and yaw under control, and dangling a long fuel pipe to make contact with a small target. And trying to decide whether it will be smoked salmon of venison for lunch. Don't think that's much like three vehicles maintaining a two dimensional position on a hard and stable surface with another fast moving object. But I could be wrong; I've never flown an aircraft.

If anyone knows the answer to that, you're probably going to be very wealthy. Unless you post the answer here, then we're all going to be a bit better off I bet this is the sort of question that only gets discussed in the philosophy forums. But I think it really belongs in Psychology or even Neuroscience. Sisyphus: I think that's a pretty spot on description of selfishness you gave. I get pleasure from helping others; I'm a selfish altruistic.

But I bet it would be very exciting.

Is it not that we get pleasure from these things, or avoid discomfort, pain, etc. If I give to charity is it because I am not selfish or is it because I feel bad about not giving or feel good about giving. It seems there is always an argument to support the idea that you get something from anything you do, or avoid a negative thing. A mother protects her child because she loves her child and will feel pain if her child is harmed. A person that is unselfish is a person that gains something from their unselfishness. That is still a good thing even though the core motivation is selfishness. Selfishness as it is seen on the surface is where someone gets pleasure from what appears to be a selfish act. There probably isn't an example that could be given of pure unselfishness insofar as it will always be possible to find some reward, or avoidance of pain, etc. in the act at some level.

Let's forget the undercarriage altogether We have a big tunnel with a fan at the end providing sufficient air throughput to maintain flight. The aircraft flies in to the tunnel until its relative speed with the tunnel is zero; though still flying through the air stream created by the fan. Jacks etc. move out from the tunnel to fix the aircraft in place whilst the aircraft engines and tunnel fan are shut down. For take off the process is reversed but the fan at the front is lowered away whilst a fan at the back, where the aircraft entered, is raised in to place to suck the air through the tunnel to create lift. No wheels required

You say the gateway PC can't be on all the time. With Wingate it would have to be on for Internet access but it could be left just on the logon screen; nobody would have to log on as it runs as a service. As for client side software. Do the clients use file and printer sharing? If they do then any software has to be good enough to recognise traffic to the gateway as opposed to traffic on the LAN subnet or you may loose file and print sharing facilities once the limit is reached.

It would mean the gateway computer would have to be on for any Internet access. Have a look at this... http://www.softperfect.com/products/bandwidth/ ...it may be what you want. EDIT: Soryy, that won't do it either. You need something like NetNanny or the type of software that some schools use. I'll keep looking.

You can only do what your after at the router in this scenario. The reason for this is that all the PC's are connected to the router independently in much the same way they are connected to the electric supply. To exercise control of bandwidth usage you need all routing to pass through at least one device that has the ability to provide you with the control. In your situation, assuming you want to keep the router, you will need to create a new gateway to the router. That gateway can then control access to the router. One method to achieve this would be to install a proxy server on your network. You would have to check that it could provide all the other functionality you needed first. The proxy server would be the gateway to the router. You may also need to configure your DHCP server to provide the correct gateway address to clients. This software for example... http://www.zensoftware.co.uk/wingate/ ...should do exactly what you need. You should be aware though that all traffic will pass through that machine the hosts this software.

That's a very valid point and may well be all that's required to knock such an idea on its head. But there are aircraft out there at the moment that can only land on certain runways, so it's a risk that is not considered too great even now. What other advantages could be achieved without including the undercarriage in an aircraft? The wing space used could carry more fuel. The fuselage could carry more cargo. Could the belly of the plane be made more able to withstand an emergency landing without undercarriage. That alone would be an advantage for landing in a field where undercarriage may be useless anyway.