Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by arbiture1200
Have you ever come across technologies which we on the outside would consider impossible? Er go they break, or seem to break normal physical laws?
Was Einstein right? Are the military etc way ahead in terms of physics? Are we on the 'outside' barking up the wrong tree somewhat where physics is
I'd also be interested to hear about any energy technologies you have come across. Are there more efficient systems for portable energy generation
for example? Better than your standard petrol fired electricity generator anyway.
Sorry, I should have been more clear in my use the term "impossible". What I meant was a concept, technology, or protocol not seen before. Inventing
new concepts that lend themselves to new technology is what to me is so much fun, and often quite profitable.
As for technology once considered "impossible", like cybernetics, bio-morphic circuits that can interface w/digital raw data storage, self healing
synthetic augmented evolution, "true" variable geometry wings not just variable sweep are just a few. The latter is employed for Naval operations
technologies as well. Yup, doing that as we speak.
As for Einstein, he was certainly right when it came to relativistic in the known physical (4D) universe. Although very recently there has been some
discussion rather hot&heavy that "different regions of" space time such as distant areas of the known visible universe MAY, just may have certain
rules or perhaps varied original conditions from our reasonably close region of space such as the local (galactic) group. And hence the "rules" may
This is utterly contrary to accepted classical or relativistic physics. The laws of the observable universe are supposed to apply everywhere in, and
associated with our "space time". We need to really check this out because if such a variation exists in our $D realm, then its logical to imply
that the creation of "this version" of the universe had different conditions at some time; before, during, or after the big bang.
Einstein was right enough to among other things invent solar photovoltaic cells, that use photon-to-electricity conversion. Also our entire GPS
infrastructure is based on the doppler shift and relativistic associations. We can and do employ certain variations for other areas. As for the
military being "far ahead" of others in particular groups who don't have to fill out forms in triplicate just to get the military to first base,
hell just get them on the ball field? Thats where private companies/think tanks and certain universities are far ahead.
We have to build something that makes them go "WOW", and then "how soon can you make X# of copies"?That many firms, such as mine must do the work,
design the products or technology FIRST, no tax dollars required at first (unless they buy the stuff we invent) We screw up it won't cost the
taxpayers a dime. Certain companies are given projects that are funded, but only to a point. At least for me, thats very rare.
You might be very surprised as to how many in certain fields, notably intelligence saw something on a "James Bond movie", and threw their
supervisors said " can we get that to"? New ideas come from many places including fiction. Name everything from remote sensors and the
"communicator", both from the original "Star Trek", and guess what we have now. You got it, people in power positions what this technology and
often we can invent it. The success with the "communicator, now beyond just simple voice" is well known.
Other areas that have interested our military is autonomous drones, no humans on board can pull "G's" very lethal to humans. And compared to about
$240 million a copy for our F-22 Raptor, even us Americans can't shell out all that much forever.
One tremendous challenge that also almost drove "the great one" (not Jackie Gleason) close to a breakdown was he trieds to use a "crow bar" to
make an association with classical physics and quantum mechanics. The later is very counter-intuitive, but also as many believe the origen of the
world of classical physics.
I'm convinced of this. Such "associations" are used in Prediction, or anticipatory predictive morphology. I'll tell you a bit of a secret; it
appears easier to influence, and construct the future then just predict it. Variable manipulation and actor-network theory application when properly
targeted is much less complicated then just "predicting something". This work is still some what early but does seem correct. Like hitting a target
w/a shot gun shell or a rifle. If you aim the rifle correctly you will do "better" Thats a primitive reference, but does explain cause and effect in
a certain sense. And cause and effect is seen as obvious in classical physics, though it originates at the quantum level. More soon, no room...