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.
I like Alex Filippenko, and he's usually pretty good at explaining things with examples, in fact I think he won an award for his teaching. I have a couple of video courses by him, and they are excellent.
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
So the idea of lets say using a pulse engine to gradually speed up a craft to near light speed is not feasible because the rate of energy that can be stored in the increased mass would always be at a lessor rate of increase than the rate of increase of the matter, the craft?
Alex Filippenko on one of The Universe episodes on the History channel covered this, but never talked about the difference in the rates of increase. It's where I learned the concept from. What you say sheds a different light on the subject.
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
I have no idea why my last post is in a quote box. There is no [slash quote] at the end of what I posted.
Thanks, well I did join Mensa, which only lets people with high IQ's join. But I think watching courses by Alex Fillipenko and others like him is the true source of where a lot of my knowledge comes from. Based on your questions, I think you'd enjoy his courses too.
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
Only one question, "Did you figure that out all one your own, or did you paraphrase a source?" Because if you figured that all out on your own that's quite the accomplishment I must say. That took some real math skills and knowledge of what is to what in energy needed to push mass over x time. I mean that is really awesomely impressive what you wrote.
I have no idea how an individual can be so smart. You continuously impress me with your brilliance.
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by CLPrime
You see, I disagree with this. "A major quantum gravity contender with string theory, loop quantum gravity incorporates general relativity without requiring string theory's higher dimensions." source en.wikipedia.org... I believe it does. based partly on this en.wikipedia.org... visualizing this en.wikipedia.org...
I believe gravity is a product of a kinetic force.
Take our three dimensions flip it inside out and spin it inside the sixth dimension which of course includes the complete forth dimensional plane, what would happen? Keep in mind when this spin occurs it creates centrifugal in all directions for 3D as the same mechanics function in one direction requiring 2D within our 3D world. Now the higher 3 dimension above 3D function in reverse as 3D and 6D are mirror images of one another. So in 6D centrifugal force becomes centripetal force. What appears to be pulled in within the 3D world is actually being pushed out in 6D. You need M-theory and special relativity both to conceive this which was what my fancy period was all about.
You know if space expands and time contracts as you believe, there is part of the model right there.
You see, I disagree with this. "A major quantum gravity contender with string theory, loop quantum gravity incorporates general relativity without requiring string theory's higher dimensions."
I believe gravity is a product of a kinetic force.
Take our three dimensions flip it inside out and spin it inside the sixth dimension which of course includes the complete forth dimensional plane, what would happen? Keep in mind when this spin occurs it creates centrifugal in all directions for 3D as the same mechanics function in one direction requiring 2D within our 3D world. Now the higher 3 dimension above 3D function in reverse as 3D and 6D are mirror images of one another. So in 6D centrifugal force becomes centripetal force. What appears to be pulled in within the 3D world is actually being pushed out in 6D. You need M-theory and special relativity both to conceive this which was what my fancy period was all about.
You know if space expands and time contracts as you believe, there is part of the model right there.
No props for the Arbitrageur huh? No respect... simply no respect.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
The links you gave deal with String Theory (or, I should say, the multiple string variants). I disagree with these, because I reject any theory invoking any more than 4 dimensions. As far as I'm concerned, it's superfluous.
Though, if you'll notice, I also didn't say I agreed with LQG. I said it's probably closer to being on the right track than String Theory.
Kinetic means motion. A kinetic force would be any force that causes motion. Gravity causes motion. By definition, gravity is a kinetic force.
In fact, by definition, all forces cause motion. All forces are kinetic forces.
I hate to say this...'cause I like you, and I like the way you think... but, what you said has nothing at all to do with M-Theory. M-Theory doesn't exist...it's a goal of String Theory, but it has yet to be formulated (even Ed Witten would admit to this, I'm sure). And none of what you said has anything to do with String Theory. That is, as far as I can tell.
You can't "flip" dimensions "inside out." And I'm also not sure how you can turn centrifugal force into centripetal force. Especially considering the fact that centrifugal force doesn't actually exist.
Unless, of course, I'm just having a hard time visualizing this the way you are. Which is always possible.
You seem to be inspired by the Calabi-Yau Manifold. This dimensional manifold is a mathematical construct necessary to account for String Theory's superfluous dimensions. It has no physical necessity, and the more we use it in our models, the further we get from reality.
Even if you're right in your visualization, I would still refuse to apply it to my little space-time expansion/contraction hypothesis. You would have to do quite a bit of convincing to get me to even begin to warm to the idea. And, yes, that's a challenge
Arbitrageur has earned an impressive amount of my respect. In fact, I have more respect for Arbitrageur just because of all of the respect he's earned
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
What I am suggesting is that if there are 11 dimensions that are laid out as string theory suggests then the way I say 3D & 4D relate to one another and act upon one another is a possibility. Additionally you need special relativity to make it happen, and at this point this is what I believe.
Alright, "I believe gravity is a product of a kinetic force" which is a kinetic force originating from a higher dimensional plan that is acting upon our 3D world.
I can imagine this world turned inside out. All the forces acting in revere. All the laws, the ones that I understand that is, having their cause and effect mirrored.
Example a batter can hit a baseball in 3D because he is exerting more force on the ball than the ball has stored within it, along with being able to maintain position due to gravity the ball changes direction due to the process of inertia. In 6D the bat would be knocked back and the ball would drop where it hit the bat, that could mean "drop up" in 6D. Not only that, but the ball would be turned inside out to form a shape no possible in this world. An inverted sphere. We can turn a convex shape to form a concave shape in 3D, well in 6D you can to that with a sphere. That's who I visualize. Do I see the shape no, I just know it might be possible in 6D.
And you thing centrifugal force does not exist? Please explain why?
Belief is an interesting thing.
Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
What I am suggesting is that if there are 11 dimensions that are laid out as string theory suggests then the way I say 3D & 4D relate to one another and act upon one another is a possibility. Additionally you need special relativity to make it happen, and at this point this is what I believe.
I like his candor.
String theory predicts that the electroweak force, the strong force, and gravity have the same strength at 10^19 GeV, so the accelerator would have to be very powerful, to say the least. Even so, a direct testing of string theory seems impossible and this has led many scientists to claim that string theory is mere speculation and does not deserve the lofty term theory. For all the conceptual revolutions in string theory, many physicists maintain that there is little to show but a lot of beautiful mathematics.
“We’ve made an enormous amount of progress in the last few years”, says Dr. Steven Giddings of the University of Santa Barbara, “but now we realize the greater depth of our ignorance."
The power stored in the LHC 360 MJoule: the energy stored in one LHC beam corresponds approximately to… 90 kg of TNT