brian_dean20

since we are on the topic of artificial graivity,,, can anyone tell me what would happen if the following was to be done in empty space....... take an object of lets say 1000 mass and lets say rotate it at 10,000 rpm,,, would any gravitational change occur?

ok sorry, in the future I am going to spell check my posts using ms.word. and just for the record.... john5746 i never meant to ask why humans pop up with the reincarnation theory, my question was different... hahhaha i am really inching to try to rephrase the question,....................................... ............................................... guess what i wrote a whole bunch of things to post, than read it myself and could not understand what i meant, so lets just let it go, no language in the world has the words which can give meaning to my inquiry anyway i am sleepy now,,, sweet dreams

wow, i knew it even before posting this thread that its going to be impossible to type what i am trying to say,,,,, but even more funny than that is the face that i cant pick out any spelling mistakes out of my previous posts.

:D firstly, i dont belive in reincarnation ** ** dont know which line of mine gave u that impression. let me just give you'll a short explanation of what i mean by the two words 1. consence and 2. reincarnation 1. consence = like how Descartes said " i think therefore i am " sweet and simple 2. reincarnation = the transfer of one's soul after death into another body. i am telling youll about those moments when one has a lot of time at hand and just wonders off into pointless throught. lets just for a second totally belive that they is a 1 in a million change that when u die there are only two states into which u can go, the first state being the unconsence one ( i am not thinking therefore i am not ) and the second offcouse being consence (i think therefore i am), its in this second state, that when u imagine that in another 100 years u could be consence in another body is when self-identity in that person who live a 100 years in the furture mixes up with the identity of one's self, and both seem the same. Here is another lame try: why cant i think of consenceness as an object? ummmmmmmm if u understood that,,,, than u can read between the words, if not i wish they was one word which could mean what i am trying to say,,,, but there is not. before one of u comes up with the explanation as to what Descartes meant by that sentences of his, let me remind u that instead of those 5 words i could have copy pasted an 80 MB text file explaning what consenceness is, so for the sack:cool: of being timely " i am there for i am"

i am going to try to rephase,,,, why do two me's at different times end up with the concluetion of they being reincarnation (transfer of soul) at play,

For the sack of agurement, lets say that once a person dies there is no heaven or hell for him to go to, lets even say thats the end of him( lets call him Max), so once Max dies the only thing remaining of him in the universe is his memory which is stored in living ppls minds and pictures:eyebrow: Now Max who just die would'nt feel anything right since nothing remains, and the consence being which once stated himself as (me) is no more, this is one possible part, next it could be that he finds himself saying i again,,, but this time in a different newly consence being (and this time he goes by the name Maxter) ALL OF THE ABOVE IS purely based on that saying which goes something like this "if they were two living being in this entire universe, those two being would be me( whos writing this) and you (whos reading this). PROBLEM.... if once thinks about this seriouly, why do they endup with the reincarnation like process and feel that maxter is the reincarnation of max when clearly for reincarnation to accure they must be a transfer of something soul like, whereas max and maxter do not have anything between them. is this some like of a defect in the human mind?

I throw away my dialup modem and phone line to get connected to the internet using gprs on my mobile phone, since the reviews that i saw online stated that gprs goes up to speeds of 32kps to 48kps i was quite happy with that,,,,, but now the problem that i am faceing is that i am getting a much lower speed than that, when i establish the connection using a bluetooth device the connection states that i am connected at a speed of 115. kbps (i know thats just the port speed) in task manager under the network tab the utilization of the connection allway stays under 20%, which means that i only have 20% of that 115 kbps working for me, which i guess means that i am only getting 23 kbps. i am using a nokia 6300 which has a Class 10 (4 1/3 2 slots) gprs. i was wondering how could i see which setting is that gprs at 4 1 or 3 2, since i dont need to upload that much i was hoping that if i were able to modify the slots to a 4+1 setting i could speed up my browsing 25%,,,, so any ideas????? seem like what i am trying to do is impossible at this point, since 25 of youll have viewed my post but not have given as ideas....

yes i am having the same problem,,, every once in a while i sink into my throughts, and try to define consciousness. here is what i come up with, simple logic,,, if they were two things in the universe that were consciouse,,,, it would be u and me, and if they was only one conscious being than it would be you. this also ends up latter on with the conclution that once i end this consciousness (death) i am either not going to exist (inwhich case no love lost) or i am going to find myself being conscious again ( i dont mean reincarnation, conscious in any part of the universe which have conscious being). Next problem is the fact that i keep on trying to define the moment i became consciouse, since we keep on putting a heavy toll on memory when most of us try to do this,,, and try to remember the very first bits of memory that we can remember (sencery based memory) it is quite clear that those periods that date back to the first 18 months of onces life is not consciously considered in the same light as how memories from when one was 10 years old are. this could be due to weak memory of beign conscious as a baby or it could be that consciousness did not exist that that point. Either way the best referrences that i could give of being conscious is the point when i could string together a complete set of events, with emostional date and one that had a timeline which did not disappear to be the moment of first consciouseness. Next problem,,,, if i along with my body and brain were to be copied exactly when i was asleep,,, would i have two consciousness when i woke up, or would i be exactly in the same brain and just clame that the other one is a copy but one which has spring up his own consiousness. And if i was to be distory after coping,,, would i end up being conscious in much the same way in that other copied body and not know a thing. Wow, its differcult to even put stuff like this in words,,, i wonder if youll are even going to understand what i actually mean, but anyway it is weart the try and its nice to know the others are having the same problem.

someone stated earliar that if the vacuum got really empty, particals would pop up out of no way, would'nt that be againts the law of conservation,,, or which ever law it is that states that matter can not be created or distoryed and speaking about that law, how is that law justified/explained, if matter cannot be created than where did all the matter come from, ( its been here since the biggering,,,,,,,, the biggering of what?) staying on the topic,,, lets just say that we managed to create a chamber that was capible of creating a 100% vacuum, is they any theory that suggests that atleast from a theorical stand point 100% vacuum can be achived(and space would not blowup in our faces).

nope a vpn just won't cut it for us, firstly we dont have boardband internet in this town, all we have is dial-up or wireless telephone dialup, but that too only goes as fast as 128kbps, so basically the only option i have is to go wireless, this is what i through of, i would buy 12`16 (give or take a few) of Netgear WGR614 Wireless Router, each has an out door range of 300 meters, this wireless router costs about 39$ each,, so thats something like $625, say another $15 for the network card itself,,, basically i am assuming that its going to come do the $50 per head, thats not bad provided that we could atleast have speeds of up to 2mbps, this router has a 56mbps speed but even 2 mbps would do just fine, now what am i missing out here? well come to think about it i have heard that ppl can take a normal cable tv cable, buy a thingy and convert one of the channels for internet usage, and since we have the same cable tv provider, i am pritty sure that they would aggree to let us use their cable for a monthly fee, but having said that i have no idea as to how to go about that, i also wonder if it is posible for uses to setup something like this?

can anyone tell me if they are any differences between a lan card and a wireless lan card, offcouse a wireless card does not have any wires but are they any other differences, the reason why i ask is,,, my friends and i want to set up a local network in our city to play video games with eachother, basically there are 16 of us, our houses are scarted around in something like a 1 square kilometer radus. Can anyone tell me what would be the cost of setting up such a small network (in terms of users) yet big ( in terms of distance) network. Next, i have setup networks with lan cards in the past and it has worked out just fine for me, does this mean that i will be able to setup a wireless network as well, or does setting up a wireless network need a whole new knowledge base altogether?

One post that really stuck out from the rest in "Warning: gravity is "only a theory" link was that little bit about negative gravity, at first glance it appeared to be something as werid as suggesting that, if a certain kind of flashlight can give out light than surely anyother kind of flashlight would be able to give negative light ( darkening effect!) but having throught that, i kinda also implyed earlier that "inflation" was some kind of gravititinal thing, Would it be ok to sum things up by saying that gravity is just a law about knownreactions at present, the working of which is unknown? secondly, any explanation about the working of gravity might only come from quantum Physics and since quantum physics is not as advanced as classical physics it could take some time? third, would a philosophical explantion be more revealing at present? or is it way to premature for any form of an explanation.

yea i did mean "revolve", hahahhahah just for the record, i did mention the word "arbit" a cupple of times so that should have tipped u off. losfomot (Baryon), so than that is the conclusion,, mass( along with the state its density and velocity etc) determens gravity throught the medium of space. Am i understanding u right ?

hey, yea me again i guess i have typed that long inquiry in yet another wrong fastion, i could have just typed in " whats gravity" but chances are that again most of youll would have just said "force times this times that" is gravity... but what i was hoping for was that someone would have pointed out a link or a better suggestion as to how gravity works. lets try another example,, i just hope my numbers are not wrong this time... planet mercury has a mass of 3.302*10(23) and a period of almost 59 days to complete one rotation, while mars has a mass of 6.4153*10(23) and it takes it 1.02 days to complete one rotation, now mars has a greater mass, almost twices that of mercury and a 1 to 59 day faster rotation period but gravity is almost the same, that is 0.377 gs for mercury and 0.376 for mar,,, question, if mass does not determine gravity, rotation does not, than what does. ok now i am sure that they must be some scientific way of calculating planety mass and stuff, i am pritty sure that they formula would also be logical, but rather than stateing the formula of calculating planetry mass, can anyone explain what gravity really is, if i may put it in a different way, "what takes place in mass that creates gravity" dont go rough on me, i know nothing about physices infact i just spent the last 3 years learning about economics. about that moon illusion, last i heard they were about 50 different explanation for the illusion, some of them were illusion (i.e due to faults in human presurption) and some of the justifations did not fall into the category of illusions, i am pritty sure that i remember from a "Philosophy of Mind" lecture or "Ideas of Psychology" lecture that this was still an open question. http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/pluto/index.shtml take a look at the third image of this page, all the plantes rotate in their orbit in the same direction, in this image its an counter-clock wise direction. Venus, Uranus and Pluto also rotate in the same direction.

if u have a software that was instructed to round up figures,,, than 2+2 could be equal to 5. 2.4+2.4 = 4.8 the output would be displayed as 2+2 = 5 and it would even be considered as ture. apart from that i cant think of a way by which it can be logically stated that its ture at the moment.

The mechanics of gravity. Most of us have wonder about the magnificent workings of gravity and have at some point or the other asked the question, how does gravity work? Through countless people, and have only ended up with the age old mathematical answer, in this age of information where information is abundant, even the most innate theory of the mechanics of gravity is impossible to find. Which leads to the conclusion that either the Symantec search is invalid or that no such theory of gravity even excites. Gravity The FORCE that attracts two objects to each other in space. (Which force and why is it present?) Most will agree that they must be something in space that is causing the pull that can be measured without the aid of a third object. How would one determine the mass or the velocity of those two objects if they were blinded to the two objects and were confined to determine the mass and velocity of those two objects by only examining the space near by? Well I guess the answer to that is they cant and neither can I. (1) Either the result of gravity, causes no external energy or force, (2) Or the energy that it is causing cant be measured by man since we lack the natural or artificial sensory equipment to measure it (much like how our eyes can't detect infrared light). OR both (1) and (2) are at work......... The empty nothingness of space, where gravity seem to excite could also be a product of space itself. Lets presuppose that space is everything but empty, the fabric of space allows for the existents of matter. It could infact even be the force that we call gravity, the fabric of which being cubical (as seen in 3d programming) or like the honeybee hive sharp etc. The size of which being suspect but most problely in the macroscopic level, creating phenomena's like atoms being in two places at once when cooled. A fabric without which matter cannot exist or without which matter is converted in that very fabric when without it. Having a relationship that resists each other (possible but not relevant to gravity in this context) and hence creating drag, the result of which being gravity or space drag. The about couple of statement cant be stated as true but can neither be stated as false, below I shall state the countless processes that fall in tile which supports the process, Apparently the universe started off with a big bang, if the big bang was a purely chemical bang, than most problely the bang itself has already consumed up 99.9 percent of the total energy of the universe, not to mention that it seems highly improbable that anything could destroy a single object that had all the mass of the universe, even light cannot escape from black holes, imagine the energy that was required that could split that single object. What I am trying to say is that it might have been space that overcame matter causing the big bang, mass in motion that creates gravity losses motion in the absences of space (offcouse this model of gravity boldly imply that space is not infer net) and the fact that there was a massive inflation period right after (which was also created by space) supports this model greatly. In short, slow inflation followed by the faster more rapid inflation (that we all read about) and than again slow inflation. Apparently all the planets in our solar system also rotate in the same direction, which could also be due to space drag since the above model of the bang only left particles in its after math, through which the star came into being later, the first few partials that fussed together determined the clock wise direction (as from point up) of the entire solar system, which could also be an explanation of the world pools that spin in a clock wise direction on earth. The moon illusion. If the inwards movement of space into the earth is at an angle than it could be the curved space that gives the illusion that the moon is at a greater distances when its at 12 o'clock in the sky and given the illusion of being near when at the horizon. Offcouse the perception theory does exist but it is still to explain why the same illusion occurs even when viewed thought a lens. Another abbreviation that again falls in line with the above is anomalies that occur in computer hard drives, if one powers up a hard disk out side the case of a computer and holds it in their hand, than rotate it a bit or by changing its angle, it gives out a slight force (must like magnates but independent in nature), at first I suspected the head of the hard drive moving from one end to another which was creating this resistance, but than I opened up the hard drive, removed the head and arm and the same happened again (40 GBs of storage are gone for ever) and by the way, I was using a hard drive that rotated at 7200 rpm. ( if gravity is not doing that, could someone please tell me, what is) Finally if gravity due to acceleration or due to mass cant be told apart, than they must be the same thing, the only way to test it and put the final nail in the coffin is by spinning an x amount of mass with an x amount of speed and observing wither any gravitational field forms around it. If it works well and good, if it does not kindly delete the above And there is one more thing, in order for this model of gravity to be true, there would also have to be something like "space hijacking" to exist, meaning the amount of space pulled into a massive object would have to be greater than the amount that escapes, but this hijacked space does not add up to the mass of the object and “hijacked space” near other pockets of “hijacked space” are going form equilibrium. This is my email address brian_dean2002@yahoo.com, kindly contact me if u have a better reason why hard drives do that.