Probably because he had quotes from you in the same post.
Printable View
Probably because he had quotes from you in the same post.
yah, and those quotes were incorrectly made in the first place, there wasn't a [/quote]
[QUOTE=Believe;2682888]WTH, that was not posted by George1 it was posted by fedr808[/QUOTE]
yah the quotes from george1 screwed it up.
Geroge1, FACT: your wrong.
end of story.
[QUOTE=Believe;2682885]Who said that gravitons don't exist? We really don't know one way or another. Also, if it is possible (for which you basically just agreed to) how does it fail?[/QUOTE]
well, fed said they don't exist, and now he said trek has "has relatively realistic science". well if gravitons don't exist, that's a failure!
[QUOTE=fedr808;2682896]
Geroge1, FACT: your wrong.
end of story.[/QUOTE]
your words are meaningless dude.
Until there is evidence of their existance and the theories that suggest them, implying their existance is silly.
Now that is not to say they DONT exist. But you cannot actually act upon the basis that they exist.
That is why I said they do not exist in the context of this argument. You cannot base your argument (for reality) on something that at this time is a hypothetical.
You are meaningless, George - you are a little troll who wants nothing more than to disrupt what could otherwise be a meaningful debate that is not only entertaining but possibly fruitful. You have ignored photographic, video, mathematical, auto-cad, and even dialogue evidence in favor of your own crackpot theories and those of fellow "Rabid Warsies" that you so desperately cling to. Any attempt at making sense of your posts has long been abandoned as the most any can really discern from them goes vaguely along the lines of "herp derp star trek sucks star wars wins because I say so because such and such says this and blah blah you guys suck, fuck you"
Yes, it's THAT bad George... back your shit up with facts, learn to type (and preferably read as apparently your reading comprehension is lacking as well, given some of your replies), and perhaps take a course in logical reasoning and/or critical thinking. School yourself on the scientific theories you keep rambling off (and I mean talk to someone in the know, like a professor or some such, someone CERTIFIED to actually teach about it, not you-tube or wikipedia for christs sake) and then come back.
Maybe then, and ONLY then, will anyone be willing to take you seriously again.
PUT FORTH THE GODDAMN EFFORT TO INCREASE WHAT YOU KNOW. Otherwise, quit clogging up our thread!
[QUOTE=fedr808;2682903]Until there is evidence of their existance and the theories that suggest them, implying their existance is silly.
Now that is not to say they DONT exist. But you cannot actually act upon the basis that they exist.
That is why I said they do not exist in the context of this argument. You cannot base your argument (for reality) on something that at this time is a hypothetical.[/QUOTE]
PSSST, once again I thought you were for star trek not against it.
Xd- i ignored proof?xdxdxdxd
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2682904]
Maybe then, and ONLY then, will anyone be willing to take you seriously again.
/QUOTE]
Are you implying that we ever did take him seriously in the first place? ;)
[QUOTE=Believe;2682880]Did you mean to say impossible? Our current understanding of physics actually suggests that it is possible since everything has an opposite; Matter/antimatter, positive and negative charge, North and south pole (magnet). This would anti gravity likely but we have been unable to observe it yet.[/QUOTE]
Well then, (lets just pretend the graviton exists for the sake of this argument) that approach is incorrect.
You suggest that there is an inverse for basically anything.
The problem is that even if the graviton did exist there is no antigraviton. The antigraviton is literally identical in every way to the graviton except that you just decided to name it differently then its identical brothers.
Think about it in terms of the equation for gravity (not the general relativity equation but the simpler version we use).
In order for there to be anti gravity you need a negative force.
Well, the equation is, f= (k*m1*m2)/d^2.
K is a constant so it cannot be negative. And even if it were possible to have a negative distance the distance is still squared so it cannot be negative in the end. All that leaves is M1 or M2. So please explain to me how you get negative mass?
Also, positive and negative charges are really not opposites per say. Charge is basically either an excess of electrons or an amount of electrons less then the norm. The Negative charge simpler means that the object has an excess of electrons, and a positive charge simply means that it has too few electrons.
It seems odd that positive charges have less electrons and negative charges have more, but thats because when Ben Franklin discovered the concept he actually mislabelled them, he thought the charge on one object had the electrons and the other had lost electrons. And no one has bothered to change it since.
So in reality, charge is pretty much relative, but positive and negative simply describe objects that have more or less relative to another object or neutral charge.
Its like calling a glass with water positive of negative depending on how much water it has. At the end of the day its the same water.
[QUOTE=Believe;2682906]PSSST, once again I thought you were for star trek not against it.[/QUOTE]
just because I am pro something does not mean I will knowingly deny physics and the truth. Especially something that is fictional.
If the physics in these things were true then this section would simply be "Sci". The mistake george1 is making is that he believes that the physics in these shows are equivolant to real physics moreso then they actually are.
[QUOTE=George1;2682908]Xd- i ignored proof?xdxdxdxd[/QUOTE]
Yes, repeatedly... including on-screen evidence about asteroid size (on both sides), evidence of huge quantities of material vaporization via Phaser strike (Saquist's Auto-Cad model from Q,Who), Dialogue, and more.
Also - Fedr - technically, you could have a negative mass...
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass[/url]
Quick reading on that.
[url]http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae257.cfm[/url]
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100412084525.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.tachyonmodel.com/[/url]
Getting progressively more and more "techy" as you go through the links... it's possible, but would, from what I understand, require incredibly high energy at incredibly low momentum, or the summation of exotic materials (such as dark matter).
Actually, the equation that you use only determines the intensity or magnitude of gravity, not its direction which a key piece here. The force would not be negative, it would be in the opposite direction (instead of toward the center off mass it would go away from the center of mass). I.E. if you converted all the earths current gravity (LOL at this crazy crap) into antigravity you would simply be launched away from the earth at escape velocity (also, so would the rest of the earth).
Also, how do you get negative mass, why the anti-Higgs boson of course!
Either way none of this has been observed. Your trying to put real life into unreality. If ST says that's what happens then it is what happens. It doesn't matter how it works IRL.
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2682920]Also - Fedr - technically, you could have a negative mass...
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass[/url]
Quick reading on that.
[url]http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae257.cfm[/url]
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100412084525.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.tachyonmodel.com/[/url]
Getting progressively more and more "techy" as you go through the links... it's possible, but would, from what I understand, require incredibly high energy at incredibly low momentum, or the summation of exotic materials (such as dark matter).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]In theoretical physics, negative mass is a hypothetical concept of matter whose mass is of opposite sign to the mass of the normal matter. Such matter would violate one or more energy conditions and show some strange properties such as being repelled rather than attracted by gravity. It is used in certain speculative theories, such as on the construction of wormholes. The closest known real representative of such exotic matter is a region of pseudo-negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect.
[/QUOTE]
Its possible. But on the same scale as the graviton. My opinion of physics is this. If it has not been proven through clear evidence, or through EXTREMELY compelling mathmatical equations and proofs (ones that can be approached through multiple angles) then it cannot be used in another argument as evidence or as an operating point.
[QUOTE=Believe;2682923]Actually, the equation that you use only determines the intensity or magnitude of gravity, not its direction which a key piece here. The force would not be negative, it would be in the opposite direction (instead of toward the center off mass it would go away from the center of mass). I.E. if you converted all the earths current gravity (LOL at this crazy crap) into antigravity you would simply be launched away from the earth at escape velocity (also, so would the rest of the earth).
Also, how do you get negative mass, why the anti-Higgs boson of course!
Either way none of this has been observed. Your trying to put real life into unreality. If ST says that's what happens then it is what happens. It doesn't matter how it works IRL.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]In the first mathematically accurate description of gravity, Newton's law of universal gravitation, gravity was an external force transmitted by unknown means. However in the early part of the 20th century Newton's model was replaced by the more general and complete description known as general relativity. In general relativity, gravity is not a force in the traditional sense of the word, but the result of the geometry of space itself. These geometrical solutions always cause attractive "forces". Under general relativity, anti-gravity is highly unlikely, except under contrived circumstances that are regarded as unlikely or impossible. The term "anti-gravity" is also sometimes used to refer to hypothetical reactionless propulsion drives based on certain solutions to general relativity, although these do not oppose gravity as such.
[/QUOTE]
Although what you said did not really change anything. Gravity is a scalar, not a vector. There has to be a positive or a negative (assuming antigravity were possible), it doesn't really matter whether you name attracting as positive or as negative.
Curiously what you said also stumbles upon one of the paradoxes of antigravity. The whole reasoning behind why you want to have antigravity in science fiction universes is it is a cheap, safe, reliable, and easy way to deal with the problem of having rocket motors on titanic spaceships the size of a small country.
You said in your example that if you reversed the earth's gravity then it would throw us all out into space. Not quite.
Lets say you and I are around 5 meters apart in space in spacesuits. And we happen to weight the exact same and lets just say were the same height and moving at the same velocity.
Lets say you switch on your special antigravity belt that adds no overrall mass to you. Your gravity becomes negative. What would then happen is that your gravitational force would push me away from you. BUT, as I am accelerated by your antigravity my own gravity will attract you to me. So in effect what will happen is that you are constantly pushing me away and I am constantly pulling you towards me. And if our masses were slightly different then what kittamaru would see is you and I flying relatively close to one another shooting across space at a pretty high velocity.
Once again SCIFI not SCIENCE.
Also, don't pretend like you carried out the derivations yourself. How do you know if the math is compelling or not if you can't understand it? You can read what some dude wrote but until you grasp the math you don't really know either. I definitely do not grasp the math.
I have taken quantum chemistry in college (got an A) but only touches on this stuff at the most basic level. The math is brain hurtingly hard, and very non-intuitive. For instance:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation[/url]
If you truly do understand it then my hats off you to. However, please do us the favor of posting the equations that you base your assumptions on so the rest of us can decide for ourselves.
Also, one must remember that the whole concept of antigravity has no real roots in actual physics but in science fiction. Im not saying that someday in the future we wont find some sort of loophole that makes it possible, Im just saying that when you realize that the entire reason you thought something to be true came from fiction you need to start to question that thing.
[QUOTE]One might consider the results of placing such a substance under one-half of a wheel on a shaft. The side of the wheel above the substance would have no weight, while the other side would. This would cause the wheel to continually "fall" toward the side above the plate. This motion could be harnessed to produce power for free, a clear violation of the first law of thermodynamics. More generally, it follows from Gauss's law that static inverse-square fields (such as Earth's gravitational field) cannot be blocked (magnetism is static, but is inverse-cube). Under general relativity, the entire concept is something of a non-sequitur.
[/QUOTE]
Gauss's law is one of Maxwell's equations and you probably learned something about it in college.
[QUOTE]Negative massUnder general relativity, gravity is the result of following a spatial geometry (change in the normal shape of space) caused by local mass-energy. This theory holds that it is the altered shape of space, deformed by massive objects, that causes 'gravity', which is actually a property of deformed space rather than being a true force. Although the equations cannot produce a "negative geometry" normally, it is possible to do so using a "negative mass". The same equations do not, of themselves, rule out the existence of negative mass.
Both general relativity and Newtonian gravity appear to predict that negative mass would produce a repulsive gravitational field. In particular, Sir Hermann Bondi proposed in 1957 that negative gravitational mass, combined with negative inertial mass, would comply with the strong equivalence principle of general relativity theory and the Newtonian laws of conservation of linear momentum and energy. Bondi's proof yielded singularity free solutions for the relativity equations.[10] In July 1988, Robert L. Forward presented a paper at the AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE 24th Joint Propulsion Conference that proposed a Bondi negative gravitational mass propulsion system.[11]
Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses:
where:
F12 is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
|m1| >0 is the (negative) mass of the first point mass, the minus is put out to show negative force, m1 is actually <0
m2 >0 is the mass of the second point mass,
r is the distance between the two point masses.
Bondi pointed out that a negative mass will fall toward (and not away from) "normal" matter, since although the gravitational force is repulsive, the negative mass (according to Newton's law, F=ma) responds by accelerating in the opposite of the direction of the force. Normal mass, on the other hand, will fall away from the negative matter. He noted that two identical masses, one positive and one negative, placed near each other will therefore self-accelerate in the direction of the line between them, with the negative mass chasing after the positive mass.[10] Notice that because the negative mass acquires negative kinetic energy, the total energy of the accelerating masses remains at zero. Forward pointed out that the self-acceleration effect is due to the negative inertial mass, and could be seen induced without the gravitational forces between the particles.[11]
The Standard Model of particle physics, which describes all presently known forms of matter, does not include negative mass. Although cosmological dark matter may consist of particles outside the Standard Model whose nature is unknown, their mass is ostensibly known - since they were postulated from their gravitational effects on surrounding objects, which implies their mass is positive. (The proposed cosmological dark energy, on the other hand, is more complicated, since according to general relativity the effects of both its energy density and its negative pressure contribute to its gravitational effect.)
[/QUOTE]
its funny, I was just thinking that george1 sounds like that guy, ricery? ricry? or something.