It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists Make Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light

page: 13
71
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


Actually a computer is always correct so long the programmer is.

And it only needs to take the forces detected around a black hole to accurately portrayal what happens.

The thought that computers are like terminators that at any second can alter and go against you is purely a move creation

For computers, an error or glitch usually means cataclysmic termination of the application. Not simply a wrong reading.




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It's certainly true that there are limitations on how many nucleons can be bound together by nuclear forces. However, neutron stars are not bound by nuclear forces. They're bound by gravity. And, so far as anyone knows, there is no fundamental limitation on the amount of material that can be bound by gravity.

Here we have known laws of nuclear chemistry saying such matter is impossible and can not exist.

Nuclear chemistry says a neutron star density can't exist in the earth's relatively weak gravitational field? True. Where does nuclear chemistry say that neutron star density can't exist in the much stronger gravitational field of a neutron star? It doesn't, though apparently some people would like you to think so.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
In the mean time we have electrical engineers proposing SIMPLE mechanisms of charged plasma accounting for pulsars that do not require such esoteric matter or unbelievable physics.

I've never seen that, you got a link? I'm not sure I can agree with your characterization of a bunch of neutrons as "esoteric" - neutrons are very common and packing them together in an intense gravitational field doesn't stretch my imagination too far but if you have a better theory, post the link.


[edit on 4-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic

Photons don't have mass, and don't rely on momentum for their speed. It's constant in a vacuum, regardless of what it bounces off of how many times it bounces. Because there is no mass or momentum, it cannot push objects.


Incorrect.

Solar sails will work, driven by either a laser or star. NASA has done quite a bit of preparatory work in establishing the best configuration and materials for interplanetary craft.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by squiz
 


One last act of inquisition for me then!

What you described does not go against relativity, it reinforces it, because space time should be twisting with the rotation of the Earth. So it would not be constant... to your observation from an outside source, IE, on Earth.


Which is exactly what has been demonstrated by Gravity Probe B.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Correction for my earlier post.

C is still constant in Sagnac, this part is still relativity.
Sagnac negates the time displacement experiments. Sagnac is consistent with Aether and relativity. Aether can explain relativity. Space time is fictional.
Relativity is observable we experience it our daily lives.
Had to clear that up.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by squiz]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by trace_the_truth
 




Please keep in mind that light never "slows down". Photons always move at the speed of light. When photons (quanta) travel through matter they get absorbed and re-emitted over and over, so it only appears to travel slower than in a vacuum.


Ah, I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification.

reply to post by rnaa
 



Solar sails will work, driven by either a laser or star. NASA has done quite a bit of preparatory work in establishing the best configuration and materials for interplanetary craft.


Yeah, via Radiation Pressure, but offer no real clarification. I'm pretty sure I know where I boo-boo'd, and it's a doosy... thinking in terms of classical momentum. So I'm just going to STFU for now and head over to the shallow end of the pool with my water wings until I can get some sleep and regain some modicum of concentration and comprehension.

Sorry bout that guys.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Earlier you said relativity is not real.


You still look like a question dodger.

Meh, toodles.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by BlasteR
 

Actually a computer is always correct so long the programmer is.


And people are not perfect.


Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by BlasteR
 

The thought that computers are like terminators that at any second can alter and go against you is purely a move creation

For computers, an error or glitch usually means cataclysmic termination of the application. Not simply a wrong reading.


But you are implying that an error or glitch would even be required for a computer to "go rogue". With a computer many times more intelligent than a human being (after the afformentioned 2050 singularity, for example) it's completely plausible that the computer running perfectly and as designed could go rogue. A computer will usually only do what you tell it to. But with AI on the horizon, that is not exactly going to be the case in the future.

Computers will eventually think and act like human beings. And human beings are not exactly as predictable as a laptop computer with today's technology. I am aware that AI does not necessarily imply emotions like humans have. But AI computers wouldn't necessarily even need emotions to make decisions and opinions about whatever data we give them. These computers will inevitably have internet access. What would they do with the internet? At some point they would probably research human history and discover that we are destructive, ignorant, and incapable of changing.

-ChriS



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by BlasteR
 

The thought that computers are like terminators that at any second can alter and go against you is purely a move creation

For computers, an error or glitch usually means cataclysmic termination of the application. Not simply a wrong reading.


But you are implying that an error or glitch would even be required for a computer to "go rogue". With a computer many times more intelligent than a human being (after the afformentioned 2050 singularity, for example) it's completely plausible that the computer running perfectly and as designed could go rogue. A computer will usually only do what you tell it to. But with AI on the horizon, that is not exactly going to be the case in the future.

Gorman is saying it can't happen today, I agree.
Blaster is saying it could happen in the future, I agree with that too.

The Terminator and I,Robot are pure Hollywood in the sense that anything like that might happen today, it won't. But to say that it could happen in the future doesn't seem like much of a stretch at all when you look at how fast computer and AI tech is advancing.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


That is not a universe simulation, that is a human thought simulation.

You are mixing emotion with logic.

You could have a computer as wise as God, but only as powerful as the breeze it's fans make.


And to be frank, rouge computers are laughable.

A rouge computer implies a computer which can differentiate between enemy and friend, have a weapons system, and can run wild

I don't think we''ll put weapons systems, wheels, and targeting systems on a simulation machine on physics and space.

Of course if you want to, be my guest.

otherwise you don't understand how a computer works.

Differentiate between hal9000 and Windows 7.

You don't understand what it takes. It's not some change of a few 1s and 0s and all of the sudden the computer wants to kill you. If you change one tiny little insignificant rule, the whole system crashes. Change one digit, and everything doesn't work.

If you tell a computer "to be kind", and make an error that makes it "to be kill". This will not make it kill, as the word kill is not defined, and why would the word kill be defined on a robot with the code "to be kind"


Take some computer classes.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
wow what a thread...



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by Louther
 


Photons don't have mass, and don't rely on momentum for their speed. It's constant in a vacuum, regardless of what it bounces off of how many times it bounces. Because there is no mass or momentum, it cannot push objects.



Actually light does push objects (while photons don't have mass they DO have momentum), thats what makes solar sails a potentially viable form of travel. Its been proven mathematically and in practice (there are some cases where motions of satellites can only be explained by light pressure). What remains to be seen and proven is if it can be harnessed with today's technology into a method of propulsion.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
How did we get onto AI Killer robots? Oh well I'll chime in.

Rogue computers won't happen. No matter how sophisticated the programming they will still lack desire. Oh sure they may have weighted variables that tell a computer to pay more attention in one area but that is still programmed in, not a desire of it's own. A computer will not just "wake up" one day with a new desire to kill people.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by BlasteR
 


That is not a universe simulation, that is a human thought simulation.

You are mixing emotion with logic.

You could have a computer as wise as God, but only as powerful as the breeze it's fans make.


And to be frank, rouge computers are laughable.


Well, I certainly don't claim to know everything about computers. But I am a graduate of a major university and my college roommate was a computer science major. I also have a Drafting Technology certification from a major university. I have taken computer science classes in College as well.

For starters, you are making assumptions about future computer technology based on our current understanding of computing. That does not make sense.

Second, it is going to take another 40 or so years before computers surpass the power of the human brain as we've already discussed.
Emotions are only going to be possible if they are programmed. Emotions aren't necessarily going to be needed for an AI to operate as designed for whatever application they are designed for. But you are making the assumption that emotions would be required for a computer to realize it doesn't have to be a slave to a human cause. That just isn't necessarily the case. Emotions, errors, or glitches are not required for an intelligent computer to go haywire.

Most AI of the future will probably not even have emotions. But all it takes is one computer to then use other computers to rally its cause. And with a sophisticated enough AI, it could feasibly overcome any firewalls or barriers standing in its way. Code written for AI in the future will have limitations built-in to ensure the AI focuses on certain functions or applications only. Therefore, some AI systems will probably be more intelligent than others.

I also think you are underestimating the ability for computers to write their own more flexible, more advanced forms of code. Eventually, we won't even need people to write computer code. And computers will eventually be so fast that they can probably independently research and design better, faster versions of themselves. Also, since computers will probably write their own forms of code in the future, they will probably have the ability to create their own programs capable of running without humans finding out.

I'm not saying it's going to happen. I'm just saying it's plausible and why.

-ChriS


[edit on 6-7-2009 by BlasteR]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


Actually, with th rate of technology, I say 15 years when computers surpass the human brain's ability.


And to secondly, why would you put an AI on a universe simulator? You do not need this. You could have windows XP on it and it could still simulate the universe.

What we are talking about here is a computer that can compute the laws of physics in real time instantly, and simulate the entire universe.

This does not require us to know everything, and the computer can assume certain things, and make up its own formulas to fit in places not going according to simulation, then we can look up to see if these formulas work.


I want to show you something. This is not that far away from reality. Look at some stuff our computers can already do:


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...

And many more.

This is not that far out.

No AI needed. No thinking computers needed, no self aware code needed.



I'm sorry, but a computer cannot "realize" or "discover" it is a slave to humanity. You could have a computer smarter then anyone on the face of the planet, but unless it has a code which specifically states " you are not humanity's slave", then it will not spontaneously turn against you.


In addition, we are talking about this:



Not this.



How will the first one spontaneously begin to operate like the second one? Even if it did, do you realize how easy it is to kill a brick trying to kill you, as opposed to a walking terminator?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
What you described does not go against relativity, it reinforces it, because space time should be twisting with the rotation of the Earth.

Frame dragging, in other words.



Well done, Gorman91. Thanks largely to you and Arbitrageur, the score on this thread is now: science and commonsense 1, pseudoscientific quackery 0.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
HA, funny.
You'll find the data used to infer lensing thirring has been heavily criticized. Look it up. You can find it on the NASA JPL site as well.
Gravity affects satellites, well, duh!

I corrected my post regarding Sagnac, although this error was used to reinforce Einsteins relativity. That's hilarious, it was false! That proves you guys will grasp at anything for support.

Quote me where I said, relativity is bunk. You can't, never did. Space time is bunk.

Controlled tests involving super conductors have found zilch evidence for frame dragging.

Show the controlled tests that prove frame dragging empirically.
Show the controlled tests for absolutely any of the sci fi science you guys conform too.

Just to add.. Gravity Probe B scores 'F' in NASA review


[edit on 7-7-2009 by squiz]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


It's certainly true that there are limitations on how many nucleons can be bound together by nuclear forces. However, neutron stars are not bound by nuclear forces. They're bound by gravity. And, so far as anyone knows, there is no fundamental limitation on the amount of material that can be bound by gravity.


Another case of astrophysicist reinventing physics to suit their needs. mass is a property of matter, matter is made of these sub atomic particles that obey these rules. Matter obeys these rules. Mass is a property of matter.

Is there any science to back this up, beyond the flawed logic of that statement? Show me.
No, of course not. It's just words. Meaningless words with no proof to support it.
Show me some neutronium? where can I get some? oh yeah that's right one teaspoon weighs a thousand tonnes on Earth right? that's gunna affect the shipping costs.


Then you'll have to explain the broken rhythm observed in the pulses.

Cherry picking arguments while ignoring the other falsifying facts. Nice.

Yes I'm the pseudo scientist asking for the experimental proof that no one can supply. How ironic.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


you said space time is Bunk. But what about the fact that stars behind the sun can be visible during a solar eclipse? Einstein postulated it was possible and then Arthur Eddington saw it with his own eyes. Shortly after, Einstein was world famous. The idea is simple. Gravity distorts space/time causing the light from the star to be visible when it normally wouldn't be if it had traveled in a straight line from the star to the observer.

Sure, at the most fundamental level of scientific understanding we still don't fully understand things like time, electromangetism, gravity, etc.. But how would you explain this?

The effect is basically "gravitational lensing" and it is evident in all of the "Hubble Deep Field" images in which the gravity of galaxies closer to earth bend and distort the light from galaxies farther away.

The problem with being "anti-space/time" is this.
It's easy to assume that maybe the mathematicians are wrong, the theories are wrong, maybe even Einstein was wrong. But it's much harder to prove it doesn't exist than it is to prove that it does. It might be argued by some of the believers in the "ether" that the lensing is just an effect of the ether and that space/time are just 2 factors linked to the ether. But light still travels the same speed all the time. How would this be explained with this way of thinking?

-ChriS



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


Oh that's just the magical aether of the universe which shows all signs of space time distortion but it isn't.

IT ISN'T.... To sqiz at least

God forbid Tesla be wrong on something.



[edit on 8-7-2009 by Gorman91]



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join