Today's imbecile

[Darth Wong]

Subject: Laws of physics
From: Fernando Vargas <ferntjsf@aol.com>
Date: Today 04:10:23 am

No law of physics prohibits faster than light speed.  Theory of physics do.  Which are not laws.  Any speed can be match if it can be measured.  Nothing is imposible.  Physics not necesrily rules or are the same in every part of the Universe. We do not know.  However, time continium could be manipulated to reach points in space that are not reachable using regular speed.  Subspace is more of a law than relativity.


------ eviromental variables ------
REMOTE ADDR: 209.219.209.72
BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

I honestly can't bother to waste the time on idiots like this. But if any of you feel like entertaining yourselves, go ahead.

[Ghost Rider]

Thank you Mike for showing me a person that is rivaling with some of my clients.

Bravo. And if I started laughing I know I'll go unconscious because of oxygen deprivation.

[Lord Sabre Ace]

Subject: Laws of physics
From: Fernando Vargas <ferntjsf@aol.com>
Date: Today 04:10:23 am

No law of physics prohibits faster than light speed.  Theory of physics do.  Which are not laws.

Theories are generally accepted by the scientific community, though.

Any speed can be match if it can be measured.

You can get infinately closer to c. But like a function approaching an asymptote, you'll never reach it.

Nothing is imposible.

 

It's impossible for humans to fly with flapping wings. We're too weak and heavy.

However, time continium could be manipulated to reach points in space that are not reachable using regular speed. Subspace is more of a law than relativity.

Bending the "fabric" of space-time to reduce the distance between two points is an idea. But, as far as I know, there are no ideas of how to do so.

[Adrian Laguna]

Gee, an AOLer, what a surprise.

No law of physics prohibits faster than light speed. Theory of physics do. Which are not laws.

The Theory of Relativity, which has been thoroughly tested and is applied in sycronizing the clocks of satellites/space-probes as well as in the construction and use of nuclear reactors and weaponry. This theory makes it quite clear that nothing can accelerate past the speed of electromagnetic waves (light) in a vacuum, it also states that light travels at the same speed relative all observers. This has been tested in particle accelerators and through other means, light speed is asymptotic, an object can get infinitely close to it, but it will never match it.

Any speed can be match if it can be measured.

According to relativity, you begin to slow down and become heavier as you approach the speed of light. A man on a spaceship going at .5c (that's 50% light-speed) would seem to weigh 15% more and move 15% slower than he should. The man wouldn't notice anything, but observers back in his home planet would. This would mean that a 15% increase in thrust would be needed to keep the same rate of acceleration. It keeps getting worse and worse the closer he gets to c (light-speed). No matter how much thrust he adds, keeping the same rate of acceleration eventually becomes impossible and even with an unlimited fuel supply he would get closer and closer to c but never reach it. I'm can't quite explain why this happens, but every qualified phycisist in the whole world will assure you that this is so.

Nothing is imposible.

I say that it is impossible for you to jump out of the Empire State building's top floor with nothing but the clothes on you back and land on the street below entirely unscathed. I also challenge you to jump to the moon using nothing but your legs, you will also need to survive a vacuum without any protection equipment. If you can do all that, I will concede that nothing is imposible. If not, then remember that in the real world, there are real limitations to what can and can't be done.

Physics not necesrily rules or are the same in every part of the Universe. We do not know.

Yes we do. There are this wonderful magical things called O-B-S-E-R-V-A-T-O-R-I-E-S which are used to look deep into the cosmos. Guess what? The laws of physics aply equally everywhere. Indeed, one of the most fundamental principles of physics is a special kind of symmetry whose specific name escapes me. Basically, physical principles apply equally no matter how far in space and time you go. Near or far, past or present, a specific phenomena will be the same every time.

However, time continium could be manipulated to reach points in space that are not reachable using regular speed.

It is possible that it can be manipulated in such a way. However, this is just a science-fiction idea and it hasn't be proven that it can be done in any way shape or form.

Subspace is more of a law than relativity.

This, ladies and gentlemen, represents a failure of the school system to teach students what reality is. It is also a failure on the part of this person to understand that the things that appear on television are (here on big bold type so it's clear):
FAKE, MADE UP CRAP, THAT HAS LITTLE OR NO BEARING ON REALITY.
Subspace, as far as modern science is concerned, does not exist. It is as simple as that. Relativity, on the other hand, has been measured and proven extensively.

[Rahvin]

Subspace is more of a law than relativity.

This is, without a doubt, the stupidest thing I have heard in the past year.

Anyone who believes that Star Trek has some sort of basis in reality just becuase he saw it on TV needs psychiatric help. UPN the learning channel is most definitely not.

Newsflash, kiddo - the predictions of general relativity are confirmed every day by the fact that nuclear reactors work, along with a host of other technologies and observations that rely on Einstein's theory.

Subspace is "confirmed" by Berman and Brega. Enough said, I think.

[Lost Soal]

I say that it is impossible for you to jump out of the Empire State building's top floor with nothing but the clothes on you back and land on the street below entirely unscathed.

Bad example. I recall a story of someone falling/jumping out of a plane with no/non-functioning parachute. The person survived. No idea how, but that does make jumping off the Empire State possible.
Note i'm not defending him. Just think very carefully when describing impossible acts.

[General Soontir Fel]

I say that it is impossible for you to jump out of the Empire State building's top floor with nothing but the clothes on you back and land on the street below entirely unscathed.

Bad example. I recall a story of someone falling/jumping out of a plane with no/non-functioning parachute. The person survived. No idea how, but that does make jumping off the Empire State possible.
Note i'm not defending him. Just think very carefully when describing impossible acts.

There is a difference between "survived" and "was unscathed". Can you give us a link?

[Lost Soal]

From This site

People surviving free fall
At least three airmen have survived free falls of around 20,000 ft (6,000 m) without a parachute in the Second World War; Lt. I.M. Chisov was a Russian bomber, Sgt. Alan Magee an American gunner on a B-17, and Sgt. Nicholas Alkemade a British gunner on a Lancaster bomber. It is estimated that a person free falling horizontally, reaches a maximum velocity of around 120 mph (200 km/h) after a fall of just 2,000 ft (600 m), so the additional 18,000 ft (5,500 m) doesn't make these falls that much more dangerous, apart from the lack of oxygen at high altitude. All three men lost consciousness during their falls, and two of them landed on terrain covered in deep snow, which was probably a significant factor in the survivability of the falls.

Vesna Vulović, a flight attendant from Yugoslavia, survived a fall from 10,160 m (33,330 ft) when the DC-9 airplane she was traveling in blew up over Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic), on January 26, 1972. A terrorist bomb was thought to be the cause. Vesna broke both legs and was temporarily paralyzed from the waist down. No other passengers survived. (*)

Not actually the ones I was thinking of. The one I read was in the last few years but damned if I know how to find it. Point is their are many examples of people surviving supposedly guaranteed deaths from falls unscathed.

[Adrian Laguna]

Did any of them land on hard concrete or asphalt?

[Stark]

All the falls I can think of off the top of my head landed on turf or softer (ie hay). But it's irrelevant, since you said 'unscathed', and I don't think that's ever happened.

Back OT, maybe this guy is just 10? When I was a little kid, I had problems with relativity simply from an 'awww thats not FAIR' perspective. Course, once I started getting a decent education I had to grow up, but it made primary school an innocent, naive place.

[Junghalli]

Well, we could be charitable and assume that he's trying (and failing) to say that relativity might have some holes in it that would allow FTL (indeed that's how most SF FTL drives work; by finding/inventing some loophole in physics or getting around it instead of outright saying known physics is wrong).
But it sounds to me more like he's an utterly retarded moron.

[Junghalli]

When I was a little kid, I had problems with relativity simply from an 'awww thats not FAIR' perspective. Course, once I started getting a decent education I had to grow up, but it made primary school an innocent, naive place.

I still have problems with relativity from that perspective.
Seriously, intellectually I recognize it but emotionally... there has to be a loophole or some way of getting around it, there had damn well better!

[RThurmont]

Subspace is more of a law than relativity.

The dumbest argument he made, by far. In fact, that's one of the dumbest things I've seen posted online, ever.

[Wyrm]

Oh boy! Today's imbecile! Time to load the idiot blasters. Tee hee hee!

No law of physics prohibits faster than light speed. Theory of physics do. Which are not laws.

Which is not a sentence, either.

Theories are more important than laws, for they are the theoretical framework that gives the laws their meanings. John Archibald Wheeler once said that there's nothing deader than an equation, and that is very true. Without the theoretical framework on which to hang, the physical laws tell you absolutely jack-over-squat.

If you try to plug a speed greater than c into any one of the dozens of physical equations, I guarantee you that you will get NONSENSE! If you put in the wrong numbers, then even if the law gives you an answer that isn't ridiculous on its face, you have gained no knowledge whatsoever!

The theory is the theoretical underpinnings that tell you how to use the laws, and more importantly, how NOT to use the laws.

Getting back to the case of relativity in particular, having an inertial observer (such as yourself) actually travel at c (let alone above it) causes madness and confusion. This is why we leave such tasks to massless particles like the photon.

Any speed can be match if it can be measured.

/me sits in the Wyrmmobile, a dinky little car, while watching the Ferraris zoom by.

This has not been my experience.

Nothing is imposible.

Then my copy of the Necronomicon is a total lemon, because none of the names or rituals I invoke seem to conjure up the Ancient Ones. I'm going to the Sears complaint department tomorrow to get a refund. And that is impossible! (I'll settle for an appology and their first born male child. )

Physics not necesrily rules or are the same in every part of the Universe. We do not know.

They'd better be! Emission and absorbtion spectra and a whole host of other phenomena depend very sensitively on the laws of the universe. If the laws really are different out there, then we should get strange and wacky new emission spectra that we've never seen from atoms on Earth. As it is, all we see are the same boring old 92 elements.

There might be different laws at work in another island universe beyond the cosmic horizon, but that's just speculation... That is, a complete, utter guess with no foundation in reality.

However, time continium could be manipulated to reach points in space that are not reachable using regular speed.

There are only two processes so far that even offer a method of doing this: the Alcubierre drive and the wormhole, each of which has their own problems. Both require the existance of exotic matter to be useful, and dispite the promise of the Casmir effect, this remains an open puzzle even in theory, let alone actual practice.

Subspace is more of a law than relativity.

"Subspace," as imagined by sci-fi writers of all flavors, does not exist. Relativity, on the other hand, lies at the heart of all modern physics. Quantum Electrodynamics, for instance, has it has it as one of the built-in assumptions, and it explains neatly 99% of all physics that we are familiar with. Subspace as explained exactly ZERO of the phenomena have so far observed.

No, what you see on TV doesn't count. It's all fake, dearheart. There is no Picard.

[NoXion]

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought the only reason one couldn't travel faster than light was because at some point in your acceleration you would have to travel at the speed of light, which is impossible.

Now if only there was a way of C+ without accelerating

[NoXion]

Dammit, I meant reaching C+

[Adrian Laguna]

That's right. Relativity makes it impossible to accelerate to the speed of light, therefore going past it is also impossible. That is what all of us have been saying. In sci-fi, people usually get around this by:
1) Warping space around the ship so that the ship itself is never traveling faster than light relative its inmediate vivcinity. This is the basis of the Star Trek warp drive and warp bubble.
2) Moving into an alternate dimension. 2a) While going slower than light within said dimension, you actually are going much faster than light in relation to real-space. The Freespace subspace drives, and Homeworld hyperdrives are examplses of this. 2b) The laws of physiscs are screwed-up in said dimension, allowing you to go FTL, the Warp in Warhammer 40,000 is an example.
3)Using a device to somehow switch from a baryoninc (STL) to a tachyonic (FTL) state, without exiting real space or wraping space-time in some way. Basically it never violates relativity because it doesn't accelerate the ship to the speed of light it just swiches it into a tachyonic state.

[Adrian Laguna]

Star Wars uses the example three.

[NoXion]

What about wormholes? or is that a pemutation of example 1?

[Elheru Aran]

What about wormholes? or is that a pemutation of example 1?

I'm probably wrong on this, so don't take me up on it, but a wormhole is essentially a 'tunnel' connecting two points in space-time; as put by the venerable Samantha Carter, the worm (spaceship) goes *through* the apple instead of around it on its surface. There's a lot of estoeric physics, but that's probably the simplest way to explain it.

Of course, in real-life physics, IIRC wormholes are only a few nanometers wide at most...

[Lord Sabre Ace]

Some believe blackholes have a beginning and an end as well.

[NoXion]

Some believe blackholes have a beginning and an end as well.

I thought black holes were merely objects that had an escape velocity great than C.

[Lord Sabre Ace]

Black holes are the remnants of supermassive stars that went supernova.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/scien ... holes.html

[Wyrm]

Star Wars uses the example three.

Tachyons have thier own problems, though. They have an instability when proturbed with long wavelenth preturbations. This instability has been known for quite some time, and no one has yet found a cure for it. Although tachyonic fields exist in quantum mechanics, all are expected by small perturbations to form tachyon condensates where the field loses its tachyonic properties and become stable. Relativistically, real tachyons are fantasies.

Plus, even if there were such beasts, there's no guarantee that the physics of tachyon interactions is isomorphic with the familiar particle zoo, a requirement for living material beings to use hyperspace.

[Darth Wong]

To the best of my knowledge tachyons have never been observed at all, and remain nothing more than a mathematical abstraction. But that still makes them more scientific than subspace, which is just a completely made-up Star Trek term.