Science or Science Fiction: The thread to debate science.

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 19 Oct 2007, 13:02

I don't mind.

No, it would just age "normally". You actually need to move very fast to slow down time, ironically. If you could reach the speed of light, time would stop. If you went faster, you would travel backwards in time, essentially arriving at the point you were travelling to before you actually left.

Think of it this way: what if you travelled so fast you got to your destination at the exact same time you left? What if you went even faster than that? You would get there before you left, right?

But you can't travel faster than light unless you warp space, and even then you aren't actually travelling faster than light inside the piece of space that you warped.

Kovu · Post by **Kovu** » 19 Oct 2007, 13:33

ahh! you put it all so clear rather than Mr Dilraj_
thanx man,thanx

why you can't travel faster than light would it be the difference between electrons photons?

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 19 Oct 2007, 14:41

Yes. It's because photons don't have mass but electrons do. There is a calculation that measures how much energy it takes for an object of a certain mass to get to a certain speed. As the object approaches the speed of light, the energy required to get it there approaches infinity. Going over the speed of light results in the square root of a negative number.

Because a photon has no mass, the same calculation doesn't apply.

Tribble · Post by **Tribble** » 19 Oct 2007, 17:15

I have heard of warping space (Star Trek) - it is the same as folding space?

So back to my original statement / question. So it is only our perception that makes us believe that time is linear. Does that mean that everything we experience happens in one instant? We are born, love, live and die - all in the same instant?

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 19 Oct 2007, 17:41

I have heard of warping space (Star Trek) - it is the same as folding space?

You can theoretically warp space by using a gravitational field to pull space closer to you or expand it away from you (Star Trek warp drive), making the distance you need to travel less. Folding space normally refers to folding it through another dimension, often accomplished through the use of a wormhole in fiction (Stargate, Deep Space Nine, Event Horizon). Sci-Fi that has it's roots in relatively firm theoretical calculations.

So it is only our perception that makes us believe that time is linear.

If you got on a spaceship and travelled very fast, close to the speed of light for a year or two, when you got back to Earth you would only have aged a year but 1,000 years could have passed here, depending on how close you got to the speed of light. Your perception would have been changed. So in a sense, yes. But then again, time flies when your having fun, right? Although the reason for this is more chemical than physical.

Does that mean that everything we experience happens in one instant? We are born, love, live and die - all in the same instant?

That's more philosophy than physics.

Tribble · Post by **Tribble** » 19 Oct 2007, 18:01

Thanks for that - but then how do we experience it linearly if it is not?

Post by **KillerByte** » 19 Oct 2007, 19:04

Ooh this is getting interesting.

well lets see where I can fit my 2c.

AS Hex said, Warp is the concept of creating a stable "bubble" that provides one with the means of entering a seperate region of space and thereby circumventing the laws of this space time we occupy.

many theories talk about crossing the void of space, wormholes, quantum gateways, folding space. the problem is that not many people can actually picture space as a loop.

Space and time are a loop, and worm holes are just a side road from one poin to another with no speed limit.

Tribble · Post by **Tribble** » 19 Oct 2007, 22:44

That I get. I understand that we can (with the means and technology) hop around through space and time. What I cannot get - and it could be the blonde thing kicking in here - is why do we perceive time as linear when it isn't. Why, with all the mental power we have, are we not able to see time for what it is? Why are we confined to a linear existence? Why do our ages progress chronologically? Why must we be 5 before we can get to 6?

This is what bothers me. How can we be so limited?

Post by **KillerByte** » 19 Oct 2007, 23:25

tribble think about it this way. when you stand in your back yard, does the world look flat or do you see it curve? its the same with time, we can't see it curve but it does. simple.

Tribble · Post by **Tribble** » 19 Oct 2007, 23:34

I know it does. I don't have a problem with that. What I want to know is - why, when I know time is curved, do I still exist linearly?

Judas · Post by **Judas** » 25 Oct 2007, 14:39

Does a positive attitude hold cancer at bay?

Orac (an ontologist) over at Respectful Insolence has an made an interesting post about the very, very common belief that having a positive outlook can slow, or even reverse, the spread of cancer in the body.

The clinical trials described debunk this myth quite thoroughly. 1,093 sufferers of head or neck cancer were provided with the FACT-G, a standardized quality of life questionnaire used to discover if the patients felt sad, were losing hope, feeling nervous, worrying about dying, worrying that their condition would worsen, and whether they were proud of how they were dealing with their condition. Interestingly, the study showed no difference in survivability between those who took an optimistic view and those who didn't.

The conclusion seems to be that while a positive attitude is desirable for the sake of improving the quality of the patient's (possibly limited) life, it won't prolong the patient's life.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 25 Oct 2007, 14:42

Wow, what a shocking result to those trials. I never saw that coming...

Tribble · Post by **Tribble** » 25 Oct 2007, 14:43

Wow - now that is interesting. Perhaps it is not only your attitude to life that counts - perhaps it is whether you hold onto old angers etc. Read Brandon Bays book - and found that very interesting. Not saying I am sold - but it does seem as though it could be viable.

JFK · Post by **JFK** » 26 Oct 2007, 14:20

Very interesting... but not sold on the idea basically because lots of other variables need to be taken into account.

I do not think just a questionnaire should suffice. Should including diet and stresses (unknown) the candidates endure in their daily living or life's sorrows, age and past medical history.

I believe positive attitude can make (as fare as your health is concerned) a difference and not just as they put it “improving the quality of the patient's (possibly limited) life”.

Post by **Anakha56** » 05 Nov 2007, 06:46

New medical laser turns viruses to rubble.

Was only a matter of time before something like this came along. I for one cant wait to see it get implemented. Although one worrying aspect is the army using it as a weapon to destroy people at a molecular level in a clean way.

Although I think they have the tech for that already...

Post by **KillerByte** » 05 Nov 2007, 08:29

very interesting article, thanx Anakha.

Funny enough I remember reading an article which said that the US Airforce was testing out a "Phaser" like laser, which would be mounted on the gunships (if you watched Transformers, its the aircraft that shot the 102mm Sabre[sic] Rounds)
Now imagine this aircraft, which basically goes into a death spiral around its target and its pretty effective with its current arsenal, now attach a massive weaponized laser to it - tank brigades or any armoured divisions would be toast.

But I seriously hope that this medical laser gets implemented.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 05 Nov 2007, 08:58

KillerByte wrote:Now imagine this aircraft, which basically goes into a death spiral around its target and its pretty effective with its current arsenal, now attach a massive weaponized laser to it - tank brigades or any armoured divisions would be toast.

Not really.

A laser is pretty effective as a cutting tool, but it leaves a lot to be desired as a weapon - especially against a heavily armoured unit like a T-90 or Abrahams tank.
It would take a pretty powerful laser to penetrate 20cm tank armour. And even then, the laser would have to hit something combustible, like fuel or ammo in order to destroy the tank.

At present, the US is looking at lasers on purely a defensive capacity. They have plans to use them to shoot down enemy missiles. They are now even able to target and destroy enemy artillery with lasers. Great success!

But we are far from the age of directed energy weapons.

I still think our best new weapon will be the rail-gun. A device that fires projectiles at speeds of Mach 10 and greater.
The kinetic energy of even a small round impacting on a tank will cause the tank to disintegrate. Unlike a laser.

The biggest one built so far fires 90mm projectiles. But it has to be serviced after every shot, and is about the size of a small ship. But we'll get there.

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 05 Nov 2007, 09:30

Railgun:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5766

3.2kg shell at Mach 7 over 450km.

Lasers can't be used against tanks but they work well against biological targets. Especially as sniper rifles.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 05 Nov 2007, 09:45

Hex_Rated wrote:Lasers can't be used against tanks but they work well against biological targets. Especially as sniper rifles.

A sniper firing a beam of light

Unless your laser uses light outside our visible spectrum (IR perhaps), thats a bad idea.

Also, getting hit with a laser would suck, but I think unless you hit somewhere vital you wont score a kill. A laser cauterises as it cuts, and there is also no impact damage as a laser has very little kinetic energy, so no broken bones and ruptured organs from impact, and no mushroomed or fragmented bullet to rip a hole the size of your fist out the other end of you.

So I think you have less survivability against the old fashioned lead slug.

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 05 Nov 2007, 10:00

If you fire a laser, it doesn't drop and travels at the speed of light so it would make a very good sniper rifle. All you need to do is cook a piece of the targets brain to take them out. Head shots should be easy, and you don't need to use visible light.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 05 Nov 2007, 10:39

Hex_Rated wrote:If you fire a laser, it doesn't drop and travels at the speed of light so it would make a very good sniper rifle. All you need to do is cook a piece of the targets brain to take them out. Head shots should be easy, and you don't need to use visible light.

Yes, but you need a beam powerful enough to penetrate a skull after just a fraction of a second, from a distance.

Also, while not really affected by gravity, atmospheric conditions can be much more detremental to a lasers accuracy and power than a projectile.
A laser passing through air can be greatly affected by rain, snow, smoke, dust, fog etc.
Stuff a high velocity sniper bullet would simply brush aside.

Hex_Rated · Post by **Hex_Rated** » 05 Nov 2007, 11:54

It would be more effected by atmospheric conditions, true, but AFAIK you don't need to penetrate the skull to do damage to the soft tissue. Slugs may be more practical for the moment, but they reckon 2 years before troops get some type of portable weapon:

TRW Systems in Redondo Beach, Calif., for instance, is working on a portable chemical laser (which produces a beam from the energy released in the reaction of two or more chemicals) that could be carried into battle by a unit of only three men. Aimed like a rifle, it would silently burn a fatal, quarter-inch-wide hole in the body of an enemy soldier up to five miles away. "Once you've got him in your sights," says a TRW engineer, "you've got him. There are no misses."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/t ... aser-.html

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 05 Nov 2007, 11:59

Hex_Rated wrote:http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/t ... aser-.html

Very interesting article.

Sniping from 5km would put the fear of God in an enemy.

We shall see what the next 2 years brings...

GreyWolf · Post by **GreyWolf** » 05 Nov 2007, 13:59

I think we should stick to projectile weaponry, that way when the Borg come, they won;t be able to do that whole "adapting to frequency" crap. Let's see you try to adapt to my .44 Magnum BORG SCUM!

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 05 Nov 2007, 14:02

Be careful you dont shoot off a testicle with that .44 greywolf... I mean, that is a gun in your pants, right