someguy

for negative mass to be a thing i would guess that it would need to be warping space-time the opposite way that regular mass does. regular mass warps space-time towards it in kind of a pit. anti-mass would i guess need to repulse all matter. so if regular mass did to space time what a bowling ball would to a trampoline but 3d, anti mass would need to act like a bowling ball pushing up from underneath the trampoline. the problem with this is that in practice that would mean that the anti mass would exist inside a space-time bubble filled with nothingness. and nothing can't exist because if it did it would be something. even if somehow miraculously nothingness could exist there would be no time there and no distances there because it is nothing so how could you possible make a bubble of nothing? maybe negative mass is meant to be something different but if it is they should give it a different a name.

if you heat a liquid then the liquid must get hotter. you can make a protective casing for the liquid to protect it from the heat.. but you can't make it perfect. as for letting it boil.. a liquid when going into gas form is using up all of the energy of heat to turn it from liquid to gas that's why liquid nitrogen will stay at the same temperature while it evaporates. the temperature of evaporation is determined by the liquid but also the atmosphere because at higher pressure, in order for the gas to lift out into the higher pressure it needs more energy because higher pressure causes more resistance to the gas that wants to rise. so in higher pressure water can be brought to a higher temperature before boiling, and that's why we have pressure cookers so that you can cook stuff faster in water at higher temperature. Up in the mountains your water will boil at a lower temperature so you would need to cook stuff for longer, the water won't go a higher temperature than its boiling point. so if your oven was a perfect vacuum you could achieve the same thing that liquid nitrogen does at our regular atmosphere with a larger variety of liquids i guess, i'm not sure at what temperature water would boil in a perfect vacuum but i think quite alot less then 100C. so i guess it depends what temperature you'd want your liquid to stay at also.

yes and no. yes they do in a sense develop a fear of heights. how else did you get it then? it needs to be from evolution. emotion is genetically wired behaviour. it is instinct the thing that confuses you is that you are aware of that system and thus you call it emotion. if you want to talk of emotion as we perceive it then animals don't have that, since they do not perceive it. but it is emotions that tell them what to do. that's what emotions are for and that's why they exist. animals don't have the ability to act contrary to their emotions, by virtue of our awareness and our perception of emotions rather than just doing as we feel we should do we can think about it consider our emotions and what they compel us to do and do the opposite. animals don't have that extra feature. all of our characteristics are designed by evolution. all of the ones before we achieved the ability to invent at any rate. ya i agree, self awareness and knowledge are tightly linked and are basically the same thing, therefore the more you know the more aware you are which almost goes without saying. that's why i don't think it is at all a coincidence that the smarter animals are self aware and the others not. and that's why for certain animals they are in kind of a gray area where it is hard to discern if they are self aware or not because intelligence of animals is gradual. but... still some creatures are not aware of themselves... some are. i'm not sure if you can't really have "i am half aware of myself" i guess sort of since i can be in a half sleep... and there was a time as a baby where i wasn't self aware.. and then at some point i became aware.. but i don't really remember a "eureka" moment where i was suddenly self aware so "half self aware" is an interesting idea but i can't quite conceptualize it.. it seems impossible but at the same time it seems like it must exist. but once you have enough intelligence to be aware your awareness will grow as you improve your understanding of the world around you. I am more aware than i was yesterday and tomorrow i will be more than today... hopefully.

politicians hire people to tell them what to say publicly. By observing their actions you can better judge their true character. that way you can better discern that they are bulshitting you. But really it's human nature that most people like to gossip about people they know of and so when somebody famous does something worth gossiping about it becomes news. For some infidelity with a spouse may affect their trust of that politician, for some not, but the media should not decide, therefore we need to hear about it.

I see your point. but you could still for one notice that one of the balls changes mass and the other doesn't. I think this is just a difficulty of measurement right? because you yourself and everything else pegged in your frame all increases in mass. but.. i'm wondering if you couldn't.. if you could accelerate two objects of equal rest mass exactly evenly, wouldn't they spontaneously begin to accelerate towards one another as their speed increases (or rather increase their acceleration rate towards each other) even though you only apply the force in a direction that would cause the two objects to travel parallel to each other? because as their mass increases they attract each other more and more. if this is so then it would be possible to test your increase in mass. because though mass is not quantity of matter and becoming more massive is not equivalent to adding matter to yourself, mass does cause warping of space/time and therefore you could simply define mass as being propensity to warp space/time, and since E=mc^2 mass is equivalent to energy, and therefore energy warps space/time, and that means that increasing the kinetic energy of an object will cause that object to increase the bend it causes in space-time and you could measure this increase in the slope of the warped space time. is that not right? on earth all objects accelerate at the same rate, granted. but on the moon they don't accelerate towards the center of the moon at the same rate as they would accelerate towards the center of the earth. this is because there are no objects on earth that are significantly massive enough compared to each other to make a difference but the moon is so much less massive than the earth you can notice the difference. adding speed to an object increases its mass and thus the slope of the disruption in space-time it is causing, and therefore if you accelerated the earth significantly enough, things would not accelerate at 9.8m/s^2 anymore but at some faster rate of acceleration, same thing if you could super heat the earth enough. if mass was not an issue than shouldn't we weigh the same thing on the moon as we do on earth? I think we could just say instead that you could have a clock on board and the pool balls could have clocks on them and you could know by watching your clock compared to theirs which pool balls are trading kinetic energy with one another. the point is that adding energy whether it be motion or heat or anything changes an object and you can identify what is going on independently from any frame of reference.

actually einstein was very much philosophical he came up with his theories by doing thought experiments not tests in a lab or strictly mathematical formulas in fact it wasn't until later that we had the proper tools to be able to test his theories. And I think it was partially because of this that he had alot of trouble getting his theory accepted by many in the scientific community.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean about the asteroid part. but I was thinking of the uncertainty principle one time and it occurred to me... the faster an object moves, if you take frame by frame pictures of it the closer it will be to itself in every frame. in essence the faster an object moves the closer it gets to being in the same place at the same time. therefore if a dot was moving at speed infinity it would no longer be a moving dot anymore but it would be a solid line, of course you can't achieve this because you can't achieve speed infinity. but, i think it may be possible that this actually happens at the speed of light which kind of is speed infinity in a way, at least for things with mass it is, and this may be perhaps why light is sometimes considered to be a particle and sometimes a wave because since it is moving at the speed of light it is kind of both a particle and a wave in this way. if you had a cloud of particles moving at ultra high speeds then they would be almost making a solid cloud. therefore you could never really know the exact location of the objects forming this cloud at a given moment in time. if you, a dot, achieve a fast enough speed (not speed infinity), moving in a straight line, rather than being a perfect line forever, you would be a short line moving forward rather than just a dot. so in a way an electron if it is moving fast enough, and if they are this would partially account for why E=mc^2 says matter is such a high concentration of energy, then they would essentially sort of be in more than one place at once in our reference frame. and if you managed to know exactly where they were you would have needed to erase some of the information indicating what speed they are moving at since to include all the information regarding their speed would make them not a dot anymore but some other shape. and this is why the uncertainty principle must be and is not a limitation of observation but instead just a fact of life. Maybe what i just said is crazy talk and maybe it should have its own thread but at any rate it's food for thought. but if i wasn't just full of doo doo then i don't see how in this case how the uncertainty principle comes into play.

but i think your mass does change, relative to other objects that did not partake in the same acceleration you did. no? matter is energy. motion is energy most of matter is motion. therefore by moving an object you are adding energy to it and thus increasing its mass. no? by that token it would need to also follow that heating an object also increases its mass but i don't think you can really heat an object so much that the molecules would be moving around at speeds near the speed of light so it would be really hard to observe. I don't think this would make an absolute frame. it is still all relative. it only allows you to figure out which object has been accelerated. still all you can say is that there is relative motion. but you say that "The twin paradox solution lies in the fact that you can tell who accelerated and therefore changed reference frames. Other than that, you can't do a measurement that would tell who was moving and who was stationary." and this i think is exactly compatible with what i am saying its just i'm saying the manner in which you can know who accelerated. How else could you know? maybe i should have said accelerated. granted if you look at two moving objects you could not know that one is stationary and the other isn't, they are both moving compared to each other. but if they were the same mass when moving at the same speed and you accelerated one of them this would be an identifiable thing no? because otherwise if a spaceship accelerating away from earth increases in mass then so would the earth and that doesn't make a lick of sense to me since no energy was added to the earth. and in this thought experiment one of the balls never accelerated and therefore would never have altered its mass/energy and the other ones would have traded speed and mass assuming they were all the exact same mass when at relative rest.

but you could make the frame the ball if you wanted. I think you can make the argument of kinetic energy because adding kinetic energy does not only cause the object to move but also changes it absolutely. this is new from a standpoint of relativity as compared to newtonian physics. you can identify which ball is moving because it not only is comprised of the energy accounted for by matter but also by kinetic energy therefore by calculating the mass you can identify which object is moving. the ball that is your reference would suddenly become more massive therefore you could know that it is moving even though your reference frame could be pegged to it. so then i think the clue the 5 ball gives us is that the 5 ball spontaneously started moving without any increase in mass. if it depended only of the frame you are in and there was nothing absolute about it then the twin paradox would not be possible like i was saying in a previous post. I think that's why they used to think there must be some kind of ether.

i think though, that the point he was making that there is nothing to compare the coordinate system to in order to say whether or not it is accelerating. since there is no ether you could say from a newtonian point of view that the coordinate system is stable and that the two other balls are the ones that are moving. From a newtonian standpoint you can't really argue this. but from a relativistic standpoint there is a way to identify that which is moving since the object with kinetic energy is actually different than it is without it. and by that token you could identify that the ball to which you associated your coordinate system is moving and therefore your coordinate system. but without that you cannot say your coordinate system is moving since the only thing you can compare it to is the other two balls and you could just as easily that they are the ones moving.

oh, my bad. well hopefully, though i can't believe it will be busted, it will be refined or combined with things so that it can explain more, but i find that trying to bust the theory is the best way to understanding it. you will almost certainly fail at trying to bust it, but once you've ran out of ideas of how to bust it and all your attempts have been proven wrong then i guess you'd have a pretty good understanding of it and then you can maybe try to explain things the current theories cannot. I also kind of like it when people try to break what isn't broken because It helps me too. because if i can't see their flaw right away then there's something i don't fully completely grasp either and when someone points out the flaw in their attempt to bust it, then i have reached a deeper understanding of the theory also. if nobody ever tried to bust anything, science wouldn't really be reliable. so, trying to break what isn't broken is a healthy and necessary component of science i think. did you read the post i made earlier? i think i may have found the answer.

I don't think we did.

touche, ya i didn't realize that she meant pioneer as in just 2 individuals. you could probably do it with just one male and multiple females but ya i agree just 2 people is not very likely to work.

didn't we solve this problem? aren't all the frames of reference of your scenario complying with all of the rules of physics as currently described?

I realize that that that's my wrong was "wrong" rather than just wrong.

what about creating artificial simple organisms like bacteria? something simple that could do all the functions of converting the atmosphere to oxygen but just wouldn't have the capacity to reproduce.

ya i guess so, i guess it would also depend on how many people we would be talking about. but i guess also that would go for any other alternative anywhere else too. i suppose it just seems to me like the energy of matter is so abundant and plentiful that it sort of makes sense to use that for gravity, you can never use it up either the more you use matter as gravity to hold more and more things down the more gravity it has, that's a nice feature. but if you can't use a planet what can you do. other star systems are so far away too, but what's cool about what your talking about would be good for investigating other systems over multiple generations.

ya i know what you mean about the cyborg but i meant it in the sense of adding features to the human being and not just replacing ones we have with artificial ones which is something slightly different but there's not really a better term to specify that. the thing is though by that same token you could argue someone in a wheelchair is a cyborg also, what's the difference if neurons firing directly control the chair or first control a hand that controls the chair. none really fro the standpoint of the brain. when they say that someone uses a tool like if it was an extension of their body they're not kidding. but still what i mean cyborg is different. ya maybe it is a little duck like, but there is alot of potential of every brain that is not yet being used or else people would run out and just never be able to learn anything new. but if i'm not mistaken the neural net gets constructed as you go, so saying there are unused part of the brain would be imprecise even given that i guess. it's one thing to be able to move a pointer on a screen, a similar yet slightly different thing to manipulate a couple of extra arms. but what about plugging in like a heat sensitive camera for instance? would you need to use either the new camera or your eyes? because if not wouldn't you need to layer the heat sensitive on top of your regular eyes? and if not, if you could have both at once.. then wouldn't you sort of need to be two consciousnesses? because, the mind seems only to be able to give it's attention to one thing at a time. do you think that this leap into cyborgism could change that and we could concentrate on more than one thing at a time? but then we would sort of be two people wouldn't we? i don't know.. some animals like chameleons i think can see independently from two eyes... i don't really know exactly what that means since i've never been a chameleon before though....

ya to say that there is no such thing as gas or liquid or solid doesn't make sense because we named something and categorized it and they are things by their definition. they are defined by the relative motion of atoms inside them. but i understand where they are coming from that solidity is an illusion. the atoms of a solid object are still moving and there is empty space between them. if we shrank down to atom size we wouldn't say that solid objects are solid, and in that way it is an illusion. you could probably also say if we grew huge enough the universe is solid. but we are humans and we are the size we are and we perceive things a certain way and based on that we defined something to be solid and so by definition it is solid. we get to decide what solid is and we can even change our minds of what it is as we learn more about the universe. color is an illusion, it exists only in our minds, but it still exists, it is still something, we named it, and defined it differently over generations as we got to know it better.

that can't be good. we should take some of the atmosphere from venus and send it to mars and kill 2 birds with one stone.

it doesn't matter whether or not animals have emotions. what matters is whether or not they are aware of them. and you will find that for the most part animals aren't. in fact you are right about emotions coming from somewhere. they came from evolution. they are needed because animals aren't aware of things and are not smart. (most animals i'm gonna just say animals but there are some exceptions and we are one of them). an animal will not know from watching another plummeting to its death off a precipice that falling off of precipices will cause you to die. therefore since animals lack this intelligence they require another way to know not to fall off of cliffs. they develop a fear of heights. animals will not act independently from their emotions they are slaves to them. they know what to eat because some stuff smells yummy. they know to pee because they feel like peeing and the longer they wait the more they feel the desire to pee and the greater the reward when they do. that's why you can't train your dog by showing it something you need to shape it's emotions by conditioning it with a reward system like food. being able to be conditioned is a fairly advanced trait in creatures. your dog is not aware it will not develop an unconditional trust with you. if it fears something it won't trust you to hold it near that thing unless you condition its emotions to tell it otherwise. animals don't "know" they are not aware of what's going on like if they were sleep walking and never wakeup. therefore if they are mistreated, for certain animals it's not unethical really since they are as self aware as a stone. Even if they display behaviour of pain or whatnot emotions are not indications of self awareness whatsoever, they actually only exist because of a lack of it. you are right to attribute emotions to them but not to attribute their awareness of them. a venus fly trap will react from touch, but not self aware. an insect moves around and reacts to stimuli also, not self aware, and still not conditionable either. other animals developed more complex emotions and the ability for them to be molded and affected by their environment. but that doesn't then mean they are self aware.

the sun orbits the earth just the same as the earth orbits the sun. we orbit around each other all things in orbit do this. the middle point between the two orbiting objects is the center of mass between them. the sun is so huge compared to the earth that this middle point is actually inside the sun so it seems as though we are orbiting around it. and so the sun is actually kind of wobbling. in fact this is how they can know that some stars have planets orbiting around them. so then i would have to say that yes it does. but again, i'm not sure if i totally understand your question and i have a feeling that this didn't help you know what you're trying to figure out. but.. If we assume the sun is stationary in our orbit relationship, and forget that it is moving around in the milky way. then the earth has a portion of it's mass that is due to the whole thing moving, whereas the sun's mass wouldn't have that. actually i think maybe you needed for the sun to be moving around in the milky way for your question, but not moving around the earth. the whole of the solar system is moving at the same rate in the milky way and so the percentage of added mass would be equal for the earth and for the sun but the sun is much more massive and so the added mass would be greater. but the percentage would be the same for "increased mass/initial mass" determined by the speed of the whole system. is that what you meant?

me in my rocket the whole thing has acquired energy the whole thing is moving. i gained the same exact amount proportionally to the rocket. we are together one mass that has been accelerated. if i move forward in the forward moving rocket i have a slightly more increased energy level (well not really if i moved myself since i didn't get energy from anywhere different but if i was moved from an external source) and therefore a slight increase proportionately to the rocket. but I'm not sure if i understood your question correctly. I took you to be saying that: if the rocket moves faster do the people inside have increased energy and therefore mass?

a day on venus is 243 earth days. maybe you could put up a huge "blanket" in orbit that when you pass and electrical current through it becomes opaque in separate sections and you could make the days more like earth days. that would help to make it a little cooler.. i think. i think it would reduce the heating the sun makes by half.. part of the year would be a super long night though unless you reverse what i was just talking about in which case for the purpose of cooling you didn't do anything. for those space habitats you would really need cold fusion like you were saying or else you would really run short of energy. especially since the amount of energy you will need to create your artificial gravity is directly proportional to the amount of people you have living there. for few people it's not really a big deal.. but it would become a huge amount of energy very quickly if we really want to have colonies living there.

then you must understand why you can't go the speed of light. if you don't understand why you can't go the speed of light then you don't understand the exponential curve. knowing it exists and understanding it are different. maybe your question should be why does light travel at that speed?