Baby Astronaut

I will attempt to answer these best as I can. Someone will likely correct me if I'm wrong (decent chance of both). 1. Subatomic particles pop in and out of existence in space, besides other factors. Space is not a vacuum as is widely believed. 2. Not quite sure, but my guess is the closer to your destination, the less space "friction" you might encounter. Again, I'm not studied enough on these details make accurate judgments.

aguy2, I get exactly what you're saying. I had arrived at that conclusion, when I made it a habit to always imagine the Earth, sun and planets careening through space in any mind exercise dealing with exact positioning in the universe. Keep going with your thinking. Might help to show the math you used, easier to get productive input.

The haiku is like A short communication Thus here it will end

Actually, probably not quite. It's why they're smartest. Maybe the smartest people would be, "Eureka! Now this is a feast for the mind! I knew something was amiss with the popular consensus in our times..."

Actually, it's easier to visualize now. I guess thanks Not sure. But I did remember where I saw it in nature. The water striders circling around on moving water, and you see it too in little whirlpools that form on moving water. In both cases, the path of the larger scale flow encompasses different paths of smaller objects which is the case with inter-layered paths in space going different ways but following the largest-scaled path they're all on. It's just weird to think about, because in the end, which direction are you really going in after we subtract the net losses of the more inconsequential paths? It would seem to be the direction of the largest-scale path, intuitively. But is this always the case?

Ah! Now that it's clear Why not attempt a haiku? I'll get right on it But first, let's empty This frothy smooth beverage A chilled glass of beer Now then, where was I? That happens a lot, you know It's quite a tall glass

What is a Haiku How many syllables, please? No one helped, goodbye.

Wow, it could mean that objects propelled by systems elsewhere and hurdling through space might one day, conceivably, smash into an unsuspecting planet. At the speed of 500 km/s or greater.

Granted. But I do know enough that if you pick up any dog magazine, you'll find surprising things often enough to realize just how much we don't know about them. Sure, we know their anatomy better and whatnot. Yet we also know the human anatomy well and even though a patient can inform doctors of their symptoms, a lot of medical problems are still a mystery. Even with the progress of genetics. But a dog is not only different physically, they can't vocally help to identify symptoms, and there are a huge variety of dogs with different nuances in body chemistry. So do we know everything about them better, or just the obvious stuff? Do you think an alien would know your innermost self better than you just because they know more about your physical body than you?

Well forget the easy, just in a way that makes sense. I probably witnessed the real-life example on a fast conveyor belt-like system with the things on it going in localized circles. Something of that nature.

The moon is on a path around the Earth, while both are on a different path around the sun, while all those are on a different path around the galaxy, while all of them are on a different path around a cluster, while all the previously mentioned things are on a path within a super cluster. I've seen this kind of paths layering before in nature, but can't remember where. Anyhow, it's difficult to visualize a path existing on a larger path which itself exists on an even larger path, where the travelers are heading in the direction of all those paths at once. Is there an easy way to describe this phenomenon?

Incredible. Even though it's just really instructions they copied. I guess bees don't have their language developed any further than "go so many paces in that direction until you smell this"? Cool nonetheless.

Definitely. Yet it's barely easier today for the average person to build from scratch a machine that existed in the middle of the industrial revolution age. It should be far easier with all the modern advances since then. Kind of amazing itself.

You really mean they communicate back? I would like a source for that one if you don't mind.

Maybe I can illustrate it even better. Think about you most favorite teachers in school. You and I probably have the same reasons for a teacher being favorite -- we learned a lot in an interesting way, and it had an impact on us. Now imagine if all our teachers from grade school to college had been like our most favorite teachers. How would it have affected our learning? Is it fair to say...vastly? And now, imagine if all our teachers grade school to college had been like our worst teachers. You know, the ones where the lessons were drab and we learned squat compared to the awesome teacher. Same amount of information, but different quality. Heck, the worst teachers usually had more information to hit us with. Do you not agree that quality of information is far superior to quantity? And if the information of higher quality causes it to reach more people, then an increase in communication has also occurred. Voila Sure, but in an information super highway, much knowledge is buried under a ton of garbage few want to sift through, for more will have piled up in the meantime. Imagine it like attempting to save all the energy from the gas to your tank. How much is preserved depends on efficiency. A bit similar with knowledge.

Are you kidding? If scientists knew they could talk to dogs but must travel to Mars to do so, you bet they'd be on the way. Anyway, there is lots we don't know about dogs: what are your feelings like? What kind of dreams do you have? What attracts you to lick people? Why do you smell butts? What do you speak about to other dogs? Can you understand any dog you meet? Is your language automatic or do you learn new words/barks? Can you recognize dogs on TV? What do you find attractive in a dog? How sick do you get from eating dry pellets of dog food, the same o'l every day? Can you speak to or understand the language of wild dogs? Do you recognize them as wild? Can you understand alien dogs from other planets?

This is not entirely accurate. If you must attend a lifetime of school to understand the information, how can it be knowledge until you intimately grasp it? Communication plays a role here. Think of it like the barriers of communication that occur between different languages. The same exists between technical and common language, and with trade secrets and in unproductive distribution of knowledge sharing. Then we have knowledge sensationalized by media, for example physics lessons in highly inaccurate magazine articles of "science". Here's a better analogy: information is to knowledge as raw materials are to building and engineering. Even if you have all the physical ingredients, it still must be carried out effectively or you have a weak structure and/or a mess in the end.

I've watched your vid, pretty neat. It only reinforced my conclusions, however. It's laughable to think after watching it that we lack the computer power to map the universe in real time, or that it'll even be a problem soon. The last ten years I've known someone with a project to facilitate the spread of knowledge by working from the other end, "bioavailability". The form it's in is highly important. Memorization isn't knowledge, either. How much you truly understand something is the key. One self-test method for this is how well can you explain your "knowledge" to a six year old. If barely at all, you only have glimpses of knowledge. If you can explain it only a little better to high schoolers, you're not much better off. But the criteria for making the technical simple is rigorous by design. Its translation must be the same length or briefer than originally. There must be the least confusion possible, and that means no easy solutions or nonsense comparisons. You also follow a goal of how many people you're able to succeed with. It's around 17 out of 20, but that's a lofty goal. Yet any higher than so is counterproductive if you want to maximize understanding among the entire group. Thus in the end, you have to be highly creative, with a productive melding of visuals, words, timing, and placement. Also included is guidance by set principles. For example, the words you use, and how they're presented, are critical to allow understanding. Also important is the design. If a "user-friendly" device is a headache to figure out for even a few people, it's hasn't attained max usability. How schools teach is yet a different angle to increase "bioavailability" of knowledge. Textbooks often need a large overhaul, as does the available reservoirs of knowledge for schools to tap into. But I want to get back to our point. Just so you know, solutions are within grasp for all this. Now here's something to chew on. Everything in your video points to something the person I mentioned has already stated, that communication is what has advanced the output of technology innovation. If you cut off all global communication today, you would see a very related drop in advancements. Communication is the number one reason for the acceleration of technology. Ideas went from delivery by foot, mounted animals, to delivery vessels, to a mailing system, to trains, to airplane, to phone, to video, and finally to internet. And on each step knowledge grew exponentially. Ideas went from bumping into each other by wild chance ---> to a rising likelihood ---> to a steady occurrence. Along it, the sprinkle of revolutionary ideas now meets each other at a far higher rate than previously. Or would, if not for certain variables. And it's those we all need to work on. The matter will be elaborated on in the near future. Now, if you review that vid again, you might notice it says technical information is doubling every two years. Not knowledge. They even highlighted it like I did. But there's no source provided for the claim, either. Not that I disbelieve it, but just saying. I think it's great the information explosion that's happening as claimed in the vid. But only a few bits are new to me. Look at it again. NTT Japan's fiber optic cables will pack not only useful information, but mostly typical yapping on the phone about ex-lovers, mountains of statistics about the populations, marketing and financial analysis out the whazoo, and media/entertainment. Very cool for some of its uses, but not very impressive compared to what can be going through the cables.

I am interested, just hopping around the net and busy with life. Thank you for the link, will be checking it out. Btw, some young vehicles put on high mileage too. Look at the educational state of the world, and then look at your figures again. The penny had the luxury of complete, error-free and available data leading to the $92,233,720,368,547,800. Yet for us, a lot of the existing knowledge is still hardly in its most optimal form. Everything is interconnected, so no matter how brilliant you are in one field, you can gain quite a bit of insight from connecting dots with another field, but if knowledge is so technical that one can only hope to master one or two fields of knowledge in a lifetime, then we're missing lots of gains and still waiting for a knowledge revolution of sorts. Besides that, look at the state of education, and politicians whose fault it is trying to sneak in profitable ways to "fix" the problem. If only a few have lots of knowledge, it doesn't count as incredible knowledge expansion in my eyes. Don't we have a long ways to go before we can truly gasp at our advances in worldwide knowledge? I do see where you're coming from. It's very exciting to witness discoveries and marvel at unexpected triumphs. But look at it from my angle too. Much of what you've illustrated in those examples is simply people's lack of belief in great technological possibilities. Advances might be more obvious if we really possessed knowledge. And then we have lots of people who can barely navigate email and function on a computer, much less with gadgets and so-called high-tech devices, and can't figure out legalese so must spend a fortune on lawyers just to find out they shouldn't have, and etc. Where is the knowledge? Also, remember the last eight years of elections and continuing propaganda. But let's stick to knowledge of the kind you referred to, and see where I'm going with all this. Your list of important events are more achievements than knowledge, made possible by discoveries. I'll agree wholeheartedly that our discoveries are multiplying, perhaps exponentially, but knowledge itself is still near to the same old pace. If you're like me, then you know how many times you've researched something or another just to come up dry. Even on the internet. I can ask you or anyone questions on patenting, industry habits, city design, etc, and most if not all will hit roadblocks telling you the wealth of knowledge must either be pocketed, or isn't really as large as it seemed. Or maybe it's barely available. If so, I'll hazard a guess that knowledge isn't doubling every two years.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the difference between Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean is that the latter includes the former but simply added the idea of doing measurements along the curved surfaces of multi-dimensional spheres and objects?

Really? That is crazy. Where might I learn further about this?

Just to add something to the computer debate. I think a computer virus does not fit any of the mentioned definitions. Remember, we're talking about occurrences in the universe. A computer virus is a virtual occurrence, the only thing replicating is virtual machine code, not an actual substance, and it can't borrow energy nor metabolism. The thing borrowing energy is the computer hardware, not the software, which exists only if viewed by a human as interpreted light from the screen, whereas the computer hardware actually interacts with the universe.

I neglected to say the ship itself would be traveling at its own speed as well. Let's say it were traveling at near light speed, and we had found a way to gain a push from space expansion at every nanosecond interval, we could be able to ride the expansion both ways. Remember, space is sort of "pushing" or dragging everything along with it. If we can zone in on the quantum level where the expansion is actually occurring, we might be able to use it like a raft does water in navigating a river. Except with space, the current is going in all directions, so you can travel anywhere without slowing down if you ignore all currents except the direction you seek.

I seriously doubt it. Or even that knowledge doubles every few years. Maybe written information doubles every few years, but if true, most of it would likely be simple communication. Real, previously-unknown-to-the-world knowledge does not multiply that easily. At least not apparently. Even if we did have all the knowledge already existing in written form to catapult us into and beyond science fiction land, we as a people can barely separate the wheat from the chaff as it is. Thus we don't have the knowledge in our grasp. For if we did, this conversation would likely not be occurring. But that's philosophy, not science. Do you have a source for your claim by the way?

It'd be doing a time-saver to future cosmologists who might one day find ways to reach those spots beyond our current understanding. Seriously, though. We do have a potential vehicle to carry us faster than c already. We practically talk about it every day here. If we can find a way to ride the space expansion, bingo -- we travel faster than light speed without violating any physical laws. And conveniently, it'd be a two-way mode of travel.