Mastermold

From what I have read, NASA filmed a mock moon landing but only for preparation pusposes. They wanted astronauts to be prepared for departing the lander, placing the flag, saying their first words on the moon... etc. Other conspiracy theories are all debunked by simple physics. If we witness a rocket expel tons of fuel, that rocket will definately go somewhere, and we can stand on the ground and watch it leave the atmosphere. If the 1969 launch never went to the moon... then where DID it go? It could not possibly escape eyewitness accounts if it veered off course and crashed somewhere. ALSO, the launch vehicle was not like a shuttle... It could not simply be glided to the ground after take-off. It would HAVE to experience all the rocket separation phases, and then MAYBE return to Earth, but that would still require entering the outer atmosphere and space. Plus there were so many scientists, managers, technicians, and personnel in general involved in the launch that it would be almost impossible to keep all of them quiet and never tell the truth about the first landing.

If someone posts the mass and radius of the sun, we can calculate the escape velocity and see if the sattellites are travelling fast enough to escape out solar system.

Um... I don't know if I'm simplifying the issue... but it seems to me that you are describing the effects of gravity. hahaha I mean, the sattellite is orbitting the sun no matter what course it is taking. Unless it has a velocity greater than or equal to the escape velocity of the sun, it will eventually follow a parabolic curve and return periodically similar to comets' orbits. The sattellite is losing velocity because it is being accelerated toward the center of mass of our solar system (which is just below the surface of the sun). And some can claim the distance is too great for any significant gravitational interaction, but the distance is exponentially greater to any other gravitational force in other solar systems or stars. Any Physicist will tell you that although gravity is weak on the microscale, it rules in space because no other forces are significant. I believe that this article you read could have been an error or a hoax even.

To delete the post, click "Edit" underneath your post... then when the edit window pops up... you must click "Delete post" right near the top.

The other thing is, black holes do not have 'another end' because they are a point singularity... a super massive area that does not allow even light to escape its gravity. Now, it is possible, but not known, if the singularity creates some sort of 'tunnel' (like a wormhole) because of the power of such a singularity. Physicists do not know enough about the medium of the Universe to understand the nature of the interaction.. and what it would do to the 'fabric' of space.

Two things I just have to reply to... first it is a misconception to think of a black hole as "sucking us in," because as Fafalone explained, it is just a super dense area of gravity, so we are always being pulled in.. but we are orbitting the body. The only reason we orbit is because of the black hole's pull. You need to understand centripetal acceleration to really grasp it, but basically we are going in circles because we are being accelerated toward the center. If you shoot water through a curved hose, the water comes out in a straight line, it does not curve all the way in circles as it's falling to the ground. It must have a centripetal force applied to change direction into a circular path. When you spin something around your head on the end of a string.. you must continually pull on the string to keep it moving. Same situation in the way the moon orbits us, we orbit the sun, the galaxy's contents orbit the black hole... etc. Note: (For the true Physicist out there, let me just mention that the centripetal 'force' is not ACTUALLY a force, it is simply the component of the force that is perpendicular to the diretion of the velocity. I lost major points on a test for that.. and it is important to note... I didn't want to get yelled out if anyone noticed.)

Not that I tried to claim an understanding of energy... but to show that the essential element of how we would define a living being of energy would not be typical definitions. The typical respiration, reproduction, reactivity, etc. would not apply.. and we would define it as something that has a consciousness... memory, reasoning, etc... all the elements of the human consciousness, and anything else would not be recognized. I mean do we recognize a light bulb as life? No, but why not? Because it lacks the consciousness we recognize. Our understanding of consciosness may be primitive, but I think if it is all we have, we must work with it. And a being of energy is more like a useless Sci-fi fantasy or pipe dream than an actual scientific goal. Also Fafalone mentioned the way that energy made the universe... but it is still not known how energy can make matter, only the vice versa. We can convert matter into energy, we have not (to my knowledge) achieved the opposite.

Wow! I didn't see that one, but I swear Monkeys must have been typing that because I can't imagine any human actually imagining that a shuttle could travel at any such speed. hahahahaha unbelievable....

But I think before you immediately accept the idea that a physical form can become energy, you must consider the impossiblities. First, energy is always static... it must be supplied, or if it loses its 'power source' for just a second, all consciousness would be lost forever. This is analogous to RAM memory in a computer... the RAM is just stored energy and it makes memory, but when the computer is turned off, that memory is lost forever. The hard drive is a physical form capable of storing information, or organization. And that is the key word, Organization. An energy form does not easily organize, and so can not have repeatable pathways say for artificial neurons (an artificial brain) or even pathways to link all parts of the energy (nerves, circulatory, or any communication to all parts of the energy being). If we say that it does not need these things, then how could the being manifest itself back into physical form? Its organization would be lost forever.

point exactly... if we really just want to end his regime. He must kill him quickly, or he will use it if he's got it.

It is a misconception to believe that just because an ancient organism evolved, they should be extinct. Primates gave rise to homo-sapiens, but the primates of 6 million years ago were much different than the primates of today. The point is that if the first humans were black (which most evidence shows), then many black humans would live through lineages that did not undergo "random mutations" that gave rise to favorable conditions in other humans such as whites or asians. (Pardon my non-PC tone, but we are all inelligent people... absolutely no offense is meant) But that also does not mean that black people are necessarily LESS evolved, it means that they received other random mutations or natural selection favored them in other ways. Any organism alive today is a true testament to its ancestral strength because it evolved from a single lineage beginning with the first single celled organisms. Also, an interesting note is that UV radiation damages genetic material in a very distinct way. The energy allows bonds to form between pyrimidine bases (Cytosine and Thymine) in DNA, and this severely interferes with DNA replication, which in turn initiates DNA repair, or cell death. But the scary thing is that millions of skin cells would experience that damage and most if not all would fix it or just die. But there are the rare exceptions where if a gene is damaged, it destroys the cell death process and causes mutant replication and cancer. I don't spend a lot of time in the sun.

Everyone throws around the idea of launching a nuclear missile in foreign land.... but it is much harder than you think to actually order something like that. A weapon that will kill women, children, AND could even kill Muslims or Iraqis on whatever soil it is used. The fact is, America is the ONLY country to EVER use a nuclear weapon in war... AND we used TWO!! It has become an international taboo and I do not believe we will ever see a nuclear weapon purposely detonated by a government as an act of war, unless it was a final act of a desperate dictator who knew death was upon him.

Oh and if I remember correctly, he was the first president after the war to visit Vietnam... essentially showing good will towards their people.

At least Clinton put Diplomacy before pride... his administration was what made peace in Israel, Ireland, AND the Koreas. Now what president can claim that many diplomatic victories? And they were temporary.. but who knows how long they would've lasted if Bush hadn't won.

So Matzi, You are over in Germany? I hope now you can tell some of your friends that not ALL Americans are stupid. hahaha I am pretty ashamed of some of the ignorant people who live here, but I guess all countries have their share.

I have to believe that a leader of most countries must be relatively intelligent to reach and maintain their position... especially a person who is multi-lingual (you should see an old interview with Saddam Hussein.. I think it was with Dan Rather) and Saddam spoke almost flawless and astute English. And I also have to believe that he only spouts the religious nonsense because it is good for his peoples' morale. (Just like Bush with his "God bless America," Saddam has his, "may Allah protect us.") But I also have to believe that any deity out there is not favoring any specific country (especially not the U.S. which is guilty of more than its share). So, now we have.. two intelligent people (Bush may not be, but his cabinet is.. haha ) who are going to send people to fight each other. And for what reason? We can argue about weapons... we can argue about human rights... we can argue about a dictatorship and the push for Democracy.... and we can even argue about resources and protection for neighboring countries... but when I look at it, I only see a pointless struggle because in the end, people will be angry, homeless, and some or many will be dead. But we all live on the same Earth, which means we cannot travel far enough to escape our crimes and mistakes. If we attack Iraq without overwhelming International support, then we will lose our innocence forever. The U.S. will keep the Gestappo (Homeland Security) and terrorists will always have a shot because they will be even angrier than ever, and their children will remember the 'unprovoked' attack by America. The key to defeating terrorism (one of the points of our invasion) is not proving our overwhelming power to destroy... it is in proving our overwhelming power to accept and enjoy, to love and to honor, and above all... to excercie humility in our own roots because we are so young and came from a revolution ourselves. I am embarrassed of an America that declares a country an "axis of evil" and then complains when they disobey nuclear arms treaties (N. Korea) because of our own arrogance. We need to apologize for our arrogance to N. Korea and I guarantee they will be willing to talk.. we need to apologize for the two girls killied by drunk marines in S. Korea and they will assist us even further... and we need to apologize to Iraq for our distrust (as legitimate as it is) and begin to talk with Saddam... to understand his intentions and goals. It all may sound too Utopian and Ideal, but I believe all is within reach. As for oil, I say if only we were born with more foresight, we would understand the futility of SUVs, overpopulation, and pollution... but unfortunately we don't.. so we will continue to squander one of the Earth's most precious resources until it's all gone and there will be nothing left... Bush promises his hydrogen cars, but it will be prohibitively expensive, just like electric cars, until a DEMOCRATIC congress pushes for tax benefits and other incentives for companies and customers. So.... I don't think we should go to war, but I would bet $1,000,000 we will go.

And just one thing to comment on how cool black holes are... we did a Physics problem where you have the calculate the force on one person's head if they are near a black hole... and you basically calculate that the force would rip them in half.. hahaha:)

Seriously, black holes are the coolest things out there. Basically, a little background before my question, a black hole is a body of matter that has an escape speed greater than light speed, which means that not even light can escape. And usually these are formed from stars too massive to go nova, and instead collapse on themselves and more and more gravitational force propagates from all of the mass, until it is so massive that a black hole forms. And escape speed is just the speed necessary to completely escape the gravitational pull of a body.. such as Earth, which has an escape velocity of 11km/s. An escape speed is proportional to a body's mass divided by its volume. So if you could throw a ball straight up with an initial velocity of 11km/s, then it would continue upward forever, until is encounters another gravitational body.. of hits the international space station. (Bush would say, "We have no doubt Al Quieda was involved and have decided to bomb Russia, because they might be there.") Talk about off-topic! Anyway, with all of that knowledge of black holes.. my questions are: If black holes exist, then won't ALL matter eventually enter existing black holes because nothing can be travelling at the speed of light? (What a dismal future!) I mean, technically we are all just orbitting black holes then... similar to our galaxy's contents that are orbitting the black hole in the center. And second, if our universe has a certain amount of mass (which has been roughly estimated), and a certain volume (which is infinitely large) the escape speed would be a number less than the speed of light... but how is that possible considering we are all trapped by the pull of black holes? In other words, you cannot escape a black hole, but the same equation says that you CAN escape the universe??? Is the equation for escape speed wrong? Any other ideas?

I have read at least a few Physicists' responses on time travel. One notable person has said that it would be relatively easy to travel into the future, but travelling into the past is either entirely impossible... or it would be infinitely improbable to arrive at the proper time. In other words, you would not have a choice in what time or location you arrived into... But one important ramification of time travel is that it may violate the 2nd? (I don't remeber if it's 1st or 2nd) law of Thermodynamics that states (paraphrased), "Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted into forms of each other." So if you travelled into a past destination... your matter (you and your ship/device) would exist in two places... on Earth in that past time, AND at your destination. And since it IS a 'law'... supposedly we can't violate it, but who knows. Time travel into the future has been proven and was predicted by Einstein and others. If you travel at a very high speed, as was mentioned by Fafalone, you experience time dilation and time slows for you... while it remains constant for observers. This was shown with two atomic clocks.. one was placed aboard a high speed aircraft and the other remained on the ground. Both were exactly synchronized, and after the aircraft landed... it was found that the clocks were milliseconds (or maybe even microseconds) apart, a substantial difference if you consider that an atomic clock is supposed to only lose a few milliseconds every million years or so (I believe it's something along that scale). But another important thing must be considered about time travel into the past... if it IS possible, you should be worried because our future ancestors may never get far enough to create it. Conceivably, if the method of time travel is discovered... SOMEONE, somewhere in the future, can utilize the knowledge to construct their own device and cause problems in the past. (Some people could easily make an atomic weapon if not for the extremely rare products necessary) And in the infinite breadth of time... eventually someone would mess with the past. It may have already happened after all... but someone else would just travel into the past and stop it before it happened. It could be happening all the time! Pretty scary actually...

What does everybody think of time travel? Regarding the possibilities and impossibilities?

Maybe, but first we would have to transport supplies and people. That will need to be practical first. And the question remains... what purpose would it serve humanity to populate another planet. I mean overpopulation is a problem that has no end in expansion.... only control. We could, in theory, populate all physical space... and we would still reproduce. The answer to overpopulation is control, not colonizing another planet. Otherwise there isn't any practical reason to "move" to Mars.

"A chain is only as strong as its weakest link." That is the absolute truth when it comes to the Internet, and the internet 2 will only remain secure as long as there are no loose connections.. say a dial-up terminal in some college basement or a loose manhole cover outside a technology center at a school. Anyone can break security because you have an keyholes... you need only customize a key, while the person on the other side of the door has to watch millions of doorknobs, and prey they catch the one that's turning.. just in time.

That's very true. Most of what will be invented in only hundreds of years cannot be imagined... a few million? Beyond belief or conception. I definately agree on the technology bit.

I don't think aliens have visited us for a few reasons: First off, aliens with advanced technology do not live in our solar system because we would easily pick up their EM waves from any communication technology they use, or we would physically see the light and structures from their cities when astronomers view moons and planets in our solar system. So barring underground, reclusive, and technologically 'silent' aliens... there are NONE in our system, at least the kinds that could visit us secretly. Secondly, Aliens that live outside our solar system would need very advanced technology to travel to Earth in any practical time period. Even at light speed, the nearest star is over 4 years of travel time away. Most Physicists have proposed that such travel would require either infinite energy and resources to create artificial 'shortcuts' (similar to what was seen in "Contact"), or a pre-existing Wormhole could allow it, but that is only conjecture because they are only theorized and none have ever been observed. So, in other words, travelling here from another solar system is practically improbable... but not entirely impossible. And lastly, if they COULD visit us, it would be extremely difficult to keep themselves secret. To transport a being to our planet would require a ship landing, or a transporter (like Star Trek), but even Stephen Hawkin has admitted that it would be impossible to transmit every atom of a complex living being for any practical use. If they landed a ship on Earth, or orbitted Earth, an observer with a telescope could easily see them. And a cloaking device is not out of the question, but in that case... you must first consider the other two reasons. If there are aliens out there... they are probably like us; evolved in a Darwinian style. So they probably have the same instinct that we do.. survival. But if they have technology, they definately have creativity, and curiosity... so then I think if they were capable of contacting us.... they would absolutely try to contact us. You don't need to look further than Earth to see aliens. Any other being out there is looking at the stars and saying, "I wonder if there's anyone else out there." And I guarantee that they would contact us in a heartbeat, just as we would.