|
Post by *(NL)* *OC Berthy* on May 26, 2010 18:19:01 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Renatus on May 26, 2010 20:19:27 GMT 1
Nice charts!!! I like robots and cyborgs. All time movie-cyborg favourite is the Terminator.That cyborg is one scary f*ck.Not as powerfull and strong as Robocop,but he was build for another purpose.Where Robocop is an urban assault tank,Terminator is the perfect infiltration unit. To bad they f*cked Skynet over in the 4th Terminator movie.Why did they made Skynet some James Bond-like,monologing bad guy?
I once a docu bout a guy that made soft-and hardware that made it possible to control other devices with your mind on the other side of the world.He connected his nerves that he uses to control his hand,to the internet in London and a robotic hand in New York,was doig the same stuff he orderded his hand to do.Very cool stuff.I will see if i can find something bout it on the net.
|
|
|
Post by *(NL)* *OC Berthy* on May 26, 2010 21:34:27 GMT 1
Nice Ren! I didn't know you were that obsessed by Robots and Cyborgs Have you seen the movie Surrogates then? I think you might like it! And I think this is what you were looking for: I've seen the documentary myself on discovery channel called "Beyond Human", very very interesting! An imagine that this is only a development from a few years ago, so what would be the state of the art technical science from NASA or something!! I think it's incredible!!
|
|
|
Post by Renatus on May 26, 2010 22:48:43 GMT 1
Its not really a obsession.My real obsession lays in space/time and war.I try to follow the robotic advancements,to see how they will affect the art of war.Thats why i really like(d) the terminator franchise.It involves advanced usage of robotics in war and timetravel.Although the timetravelling and timelines doesn't make any sense in the movies,i give them credits for trying. Didn't saw surrogates yet,but i will watch it.How old are these charts?Coz i miss Gort,the robot from The day the earth stood still,in it.
|
|
|
Post by *(NL)* *OC Berthy* on May 27, 2010 0:27:45 GMT 1
The chart is from 2010 tho.. but I think they didn't put Gort in because he is more like an alien, then a robot or cyborg... well you can dispute over that.. cause you can categorise it under advanced art of science.. but still it comes out of space.. So your true obsession is space/time and war huh.. Well I have seen a lot of theories about time travelling.. And they are really fascinating. I admire 4 theories.. One is the Dimension theories and the others are: - String theory - Wormhole - Bending theory Fourth Spatial Dimension 101Imagining the Tenth Dimension part 1 of 2Imagining the Tenth Dimension part 2 of 2String TheoryWormhole theoryBut the wormhole theory is unreachable if this is true, it is scientificly proved that it's impossible. I've read that somewhere.. they said that you will be dead before you reach the core of the worm hole (in space). I will look for more info on that one.. Couldn't find it anymore... The bending theory is a theory of my own. Made up a few years ago, based on Einstein his Relativity and Bending Light theory. physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/albert_einstein_and_bending_lightWhen I was 15 (and started NLOC ) I fantasised a lot about time travelling.. end up drawing theories, like being on (or just experience) 2 different places at once. I didn't believe in true time travelling, but in time-capture. So I personally think you can NOT effect the future with the past. My theory was a present-time view-bender. Ok shortly explained: If you are able to bend light.. then I think you can also bend the view. Only by going fast enough (g-force). And if you can bend the view, then you can look to you self as in 3rd person view. But if there is a delay in travelling.. then you might slightly have looked in the past (time-capture). But then if you could look to you self, it's like manipulating distance with an other angle. That's like using 2 mirrors to look at your back. But is it also possible to change the angle of these "2 mirrors".......? Ok, my other theory is manipulating time. This theory is based on biological science. Sometimes people sense that time might have stopped. That could mean 2 thinks. 1. Your brain froze or 2. Your brain/mind goes faster then the time we know. If my last theory is true then we can make do slow motion actions like in the matrix... slowing time as we know and experiencing them in milliseconds... Ok.. This is just my fantasy world when I was a kid and is totally not based on true facts or is not even well considered.. But anyways.. Miracles does exist. Btw.. I am really looking forward to this movie: www.imdb.com/title/tt0452694/Oh and Rachel McAdams.. Damn you got character!!
|
|
|
Post by *(NL)* *OC Berthy* on May 27, 2010 0:33:30 GMT 1
Oh and BTW: Film and Series
|
|
|
Post by Renatus on May 27, 2010 2:22:12 GMT 1
This is hard to explain in a few sentences,especially in english,but i will give it a try:
First,dont mix-up wormholes and black holes.The ones you cant get close to,are black holes.These are born when a star dies.Dunno if you know the lifecycle of a star(like our sun),but at its end,its mass and gravityfield will collaps and will bend the space surrounding it.Like when you place a high mass object,like a bowlingball,on a linnen sheet.It will bend its surrounding space,but it will not punch a hole in it.Coz of its high gravitational field,you will get crushed b4 you can reach it.
Wormholes can only exist if we look at space as a 4th spatial dimension.You saw what that man did with his piece of paper.What he actually did,was transforming a 3D envoirement into a 4D envoirement.If we see space as a 3D envoirement,then the shortest way between A-B will always be a straight line.Coz we,as being 3D creatures,can only see,use,enter,...2D envoirements,as explained in the movie bout the 4th spatial dimension,wormholes therefore cannot exist for us.4th spacial dimension envoirements can then only be seen,used,entered,...by 5D envoirements. What also can be used to disagree with wormholes,is general relativity itself.In general relativity,time is the 4th dimension.General relativity also states that movement in spatial dimensions influences the temporal dimension(temporal dimension=time).The influence of time by movement is called time dilation.This means that fast moving objects will go faster tru time then slower moving or stationary objects.Lets say that A is one side of the wormhole and B the other side of the wormhole.Using the theory of a wormhole,theres no time needed to get from A to B.A is stationary and B is moving fast by gravitatoinal forces.So,according to time dilation,B should be further in time then A,coz its moving faster.So when we go from B to A then,we are actually travelling back in time.And in general relativity distance needs a certain time depending on speed,so therefore wormholes cant exist in general relativity.
Little paradox for you Berthy:if light can be bend tru gravity,can a straight line then actually exists knowing that gravity surrounds us all the time?If yes,how can we say that gravity is not intervening in our straight line?And if not,how to detemine the shortest way between A-B then?
|
|
|
Post by Renatus on May 27, 2010 13:31:16 GMT 1
My theory on timetravel:
Can timetravel ever be done?Yes and no.
I really do believe in timelooking.Coz we actually already do this everyday.The further away a object is located from us when we are looking at it,the further away in the past we are looking at it.Best example is our sun.When you look at the sun(dont do this,coz you know what say about the ones who stares directly into the sun),you actually look at our sun from 8 minutes ago.The same when we look at the stars at night.Some stars that we see,aren't even there anymore coz they died,but we can still see them shine from earth coz we see them in the past.So its really possible to look back into time.
Timetravel is trickyer.Travelling to the future can be possible.To the past not(action-reaction makes this impossible).The question that comes up for me is,what it will be that travels forward in time. Lets say you want to travel to the exact spot where you are standing or sitting right now,5 years into the future.To do this,then its not you that has to timetravel but the universe surrounding you has to timetravel then.Can you imagine the power coming from the energy(source) in order to move all the current mass in the universe?We can say for sure that there isn't any kinda energy(source),known and unkown,that can provide that kinda power.So to travel like this is impossible.
The other way involves the first 3 spatial dimensions(lenght-width-height).The theory is that when you reach the speed of light(1C=300.000 km/s),time will go slower for the ones that are travelling at that speed.General relativity comes looking here again.To reach this speed,we have to cover a certain distance.And distance=time according to speed.So this is actually possible,but....2 points to take into consideration.
1)Again the energysource.Our current energysources(oil,current nuclear power or hydrogen)cannot provide the needed energy to reach this speed.For 1kg to reach 1C,you need the energy provided by 20 million litres of fuel(not sure about this number).So do the math how many is needed for a spaceship that weights several thousands or million tons.
2)There is also the accleration.The human body can only stand a certain level of g-forces for a certain time.So to make it safe for humans,the traveldevice accleration is limited by the humans travelling in it.So to reach 1C,there will be a large amount of distance/time been covered.So to take back the time lost by the accleration,u need to travel a certain time at 1C.I hope you get what im saying,coz from now it will get confusing so im gonna stop here coz its really hard to explain in sentences.
Wanna hear the other ones opinions to bout timetravel.Wanna know if there are other NLOC members,that are willing to punish their brains to with thoughts on a metaphysical subject.I think ZZZ is up for the challenge.
|
|
|
Post by *(NL)* *OC Berthy* on May 27, 2010 18:21:45 GMT 1
Aah indeed Ren! It was the Black hole I was confused about. Here is a good video I found about the Black Hole: Little paradox for you Berthy:if light can be bend tru gravity,can a straight line then actually exists knowing that gravity surrounds us all the time?If yes,how can we say that gravity is not intervening in our straight line?And if not,how to detemine the shortest way between A-B then? Ok my previous theory makes no sense. But here is another one about future time-travel. An with this I am trying to answer the question of gravity intervening. So Einstein told us that time is flexible. Why bend time, if you also can stretch it. Lets have an example of the speed of sound. If you breach M1 then you go faster then the sound or equals that you leave the sound behind you. M (Mach) = speed of an object moving through air, or any fluid substance, divided by the speed of sound as it is in that substance. Mach = Vs / U Vs = the speed of the source (the object relative to the medium) U = the speed of sound in the medium To Calculate Mach you need to know: impact pressure, static pressure, the ratio of specific heat of a gas (our surrounding) at a constant pressure to heat at a constant volume (1.4 for air). Let us now use your example: The further away a object is located from us when we are looking at it,the further away in the past we are looking at it.Best example is our sun.When you look at the sun(dont do this,coz you know what say about the ones who stares directly into the sun),you actually look at our sun from 8 minutes ago.The same when we look at the stars at night.Some stars that we see,aren't even there anymore coz they died,but we can still see them shine from earth coz we see them in the past.So its really possible to look back into time. So now we can conclude that time and image can be slow down. Ok from Einstein we know that light is able to bend in free fall. So lets say the result of light shined image is there for slower then the moved beam. Einsein has the formula of the "time dilation": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilationSo like we could calculate the speed of sound. Now we can calculate the speed of time (image/view). Now comes my theory. If we can go faster then the time (image/view) then we actually creating an other dimension -> the future. So if I compare 1c (speed of light) with the m1 (speed of sound) than that is our time breach. But that leaves us a lot of questions. Like Ren's: 1)Again the energysource.Our current energysources(oil,current nuclear power or hydrogen)cannot provide the needed energy to reach this speed.For 1kg to reach 1C,you need the energy provided by 20 million litres of fuel(not sure about this number).So do the math how many is needed for a spaceship that weights several thousands or million tons. 2)There is also the accleration.The human body can only stand a certain level of g-forces for a certain time.So to make it safe for humans,the traveldevice accleration is limited by the humans travelling in it.So to reach 1C,there will be a large amount of distance/time been covered.So to take back the time lost by the accleration,u need to travel a certain time at 1C.I hope you get what im saying,coz from now it will get confusing so im gonna stop here coz its really hard to explain in sentences. But I think there is a way. The gravity surrounds us all the time. And I think its manipulatable. The gravity is an attraction of two different masses. F = d/dt (mv) -> F= Mass and velocity =(canonical) momentum. acceleration is a = dv/dt v = velocity t = time Ok let's keep it simple. The second question\theorem of Ren is that human can't take of the velocity. What if we manipulate momentum within velocity. So in practice example: Build a time capsule. With liquid into it that will slower "F" = The mass and velocity, in the capsule. The first question\theorem from Ren is that there is no way to build a machine that could go as fast as 1c. But as we know from calculating Mach. There are the following factors: impact pressure, static pressure, the ratio of specific heat of a gas (our surrounding) at a constant pressure to heat at a constant volume (1.4 for air). Or in normal language gravity can hold us down. What if we not use air as the surrounding. But some sort of tunnel. With a lighter mass. Then we might have less friction to gain such speed. But the accelerate we might need a very long tunnel. Or not? What if we have a circle of a tunnel. Then that will simulate a endless track. But now thinking of it. This already exist. CERN, one of Europe's first joint ventures and has developed as the world's largest particle physics laboratory. Physicists from around the world travel to CERN to research matter and explore the fundamental forces and materials that form the universe....... I'd like to know now what results they have from there experiments....
|
|
|
Post by Renatus on May 27, 2010 20:20:42 GMT 1
Gonna reply first to the LHC item only. You forget that a tunnel has its limits. It has curves.So if we want a mass moving around in it,we need to look at Newton's law of inertia here. F=d/d t(mv). This law states that there is a force needed to change a object traject,coz all moving objects have the tendency to move only forward. Now,there are 2 ways to shift its trajectory.Onboard or with an external force.If we want to use an onboard source to shift it,you need to think again about the needed energy for it.Compare it with a car.When you only drive in a straight line with it,there is not much energy needed for it.Thats why a car uses less fuell on a freeway then in a city.If we wanna turn this car,theres a force needed.This force is provided by our arms or in modern cars,by the powered steering mechanism.The faster the car goes,the more power you need to apply to the wheels to steer it.More power from the arms in older cars or more fuel in cars with powered steering.Also,the more heavier the car is,the more power is also needed to turn it.But coz the fuel itself also has a mass,you need extra fuel to turn that mass to,and then for that fuel you need extra power to to turn it,..... so onboard will not work. We can use an external force like the magnetics in the LHC.I guess u already have seen those magnets.They are huge.And the only things they can launch to almost 1C,are some particles.And i say almost,coz they aren't able to get them to 1C.I believe the fastest speed they can achieve in the LHC is 0,97C.Dont think that magnets are anti-gravity devices.They only can countermeasure gravity till a certain point.In order to accelerate and turn a higher mass by magnets,you gonna need even stronger magnets then the ones on the LHC.But a to strong magnet will creates its own gravity field and then it will starts to slow down the object coz of its pull,like a star does.Our sun is a good example of it.Coz of that our planets are not close to it,they will not get pulled into the sun.But we are also close enuff to stay around it.So magnets have their limits to.They can be used for really low mass objects,but not for high mass objects. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_ColliderRead the part about operational challenges.Look at the amount of energy needed to get a couple of particles to reach almost 1C.
|
|
|
Post by *(NL)* *OC Berthy* on May 27, 2010 21:42:44 GMT 1
Ah I see. You're right. But if there is some kinetic energy... Or maybe they can use Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) within the process... But now I stuck with guessing. But I do hope there an answer to achieve the 1c. BTW, I just read an article of someone who said that travellers sabotaged the experiment lol But anyways, anyone else with an idea/theory? ZzZ, share your wisdom with us!
|
|
|
Post by Renatus on May 27, 2010 23:12:23 GMT 1
Its not about wrong or right. Aslong it can be put into an experiment,it will just stay speculation and best guess. There are lots of theory's bout the actual timetravel and maybe not only one is right but several. But aslong we cant find somekinda energy that will get us there,it remains speculation and best guesses. But its good to keep thinking bout larger then life subjects.Im wondering to what others think bout it,but i think its to far reached for most.But im sure that ZZZ has an opinion on it.
|
|