The Sci. & Tech. Concordance and Discussion Thread

[immhotep]

NO hes right global temperatures are falling due to an effect called global dimming, basicly particles in the air, dust & soot, have made cloads reflect sunlight worldwide. Thus countering the effects of global warming in the 70's and 80's however recently during the last decade and millenium period we have reduced pollution, using carbonic filters on cars and the like meaning less soot, ash and dust but meaning more sunlight get through and increases global warming.
We cant actually win, polluting has recuced short term the effects of global warming but in the long term meant our models are short by up to 40 years, our esimates were we needed to stop by 2030 now its 2010.
Global warming will get worse the less we pollute ironicly.

[Seastallion]

Ready to explain your breakthrough Seastallion?

I think so. I just wish I had better pictures.

It is based fairly strongly on String Theory. I heavily use the analogy of 'fabric' to explain the ideas. I have no doubt, that much of it you've already heard before. I'll try not to go over things we've already been over too much. I haven't finished with all the drawings I've been making to try and explain it. It may turn out that I won't need them. I think I'm going to take this incrementally anyways.

Wraith, you remember the pic you used with the Earth warping the checkered graphic representation of space time? (I know you do ) It wasn't entirely accurate in fact, though useful in explaining the effect of gravity. For one thing, space time is three dimensional, and the drawing only shows a 2-D warping effect. It would be more accurate if the drawing showed the gravitational effect as being a 'knot' in the center of a fabric.



As you can see from the picture above, the 'threads' of space-time (or 'strings' in String Theory), are 'massed' together or bunched into a 'knot'. This is what happens with celestial objects, except in all 3 Dimensions. You have probably seen this effect on actual cloth, where all the threads are tightly bundled together. Imagine if you were travelling along one of those threads, you would follow the thread right into the knot, just as gravity draws objects towards their source as well.

As you know from String Theory, all of the so-called subatomic particles are actually 'strings' vibrating at certain frequencies which determine what those particles are. In matter, those strings becomes more tightly bundled together. Everything in the universe is inter-connected by these strings and their vibrations. Remember that these strings are at such an incredibly small scale, that it would take a huge number of them to match the diameter of a single atom. All material objects are the result of the bundling of these strings together, thus every object possesses a gravity field. The more massive an object (the density of the bundled strings together) the more gravitational effect it has. Thus more massive objects have far greater gravity.

I'll stop here, to see if there are any questions on it so far. There is yet more to explain.

[immhotep]

nope no questions, continue (im sure my IQ has improved since this thread started!)

[_Owen_]

Not to nitpick but space-time is actually four-dimensional, hence the "time" aspect as the fourth dimension. I don't like doing this but all I see so far is another analogy to explain general relativity. I hold strongly to the opinion that we can't acurately show a warping of the space-time continuum in any two or even three-dimensional means. The only way would could show this was by "recreating" a mini space-time, and to do that we would be able to see space-time and see the warps in space-time and while some could argue that we can see space-time, we still can't visibly see that warps. And in addition to that, it's a good analogy but the two dimensional fabric and ball one is just a little bit better. That can explain, somewhat paradoxially how gravity works, it does this by using gravity to explain the warping of the fabric. What you have done is take the analogy to another level, you now have no way to explain why objects would follow these strings. In another addition, I don't believe string theory comes off this way, at least it doesn't seem like it to me.

Now the final point, what you have is an idea, that doesn't have any scientific or mathematical basis, it is an idea that happens to very miniscully use an actuall theory to support it. Which does seem to resemble the two dimensional representation of gravity. It is an idea, that use the theory of gravity (paradoxially) to explain how gravity works. The only difference between your idea and the analogy using the fabric, is that analogy is recognized as an analogy. I don't want to come off like a you-know-what hole, but I have developed ideas only to have them blow up in my face and it is really disapointing to me, but I think finding out that there is a problem with your theory or idea, is better than having everyone lead you on. Now I might be entirely wrong, but it's just my opinion, so I appoligize for this post. But I am looking forward to hear about the hyperspace part.

[immhotep]

Welcome back owen Which ideas of your blew up in your face; any that we may have discussed privately? ( the O.F 1?)
BTW Sea, this is now my favourate thread for along time, i may not understand everything but its very fun to try! and even better just to listen.

[_Owen_]

Actually I think several, in fact, nearly all of them. I'm working on one know though it has potential. It has only slightly blown up but that could be because it's so FRIGGEN complicated. I have to sit down and think about it for an hour before I start working on it just to try to re-understand it. I'm not going to let anyone in on any of the cool little details just yet.

[immhotep]

Hmm, intrieged, so the O.F idea, really!? thats a shame

[immhotep]

Great news Condordance reps, We have been stickyied!

This hopefully means that our thread will get realy traffic, were not going to police but it would be nice if people used us, we can help quite alot if your just browsing. Or want to hang out and get to know people, what is goign on inside our heads
please use us, were here to help.
Immhotep

[jonno]

Great news Condordance reps, We have been stickyied!

Yeah! Well done guys!

[Seastallion]

nope no questions, continue (im sure my IQ has improved since this thread started!)

Sorry I've taken so long to reply. I just woke up.

In response to Owen: I absolutely agree with you that space is indeed 4 Dimensional (the 4th being time), but Time isn't a precisely a spatial dimension in the normal sense. As to the analogy part, your also absolutely correct. I'm afraid I make heavy use of analogy, so there is no escaping that. I'm not talking about some breakthrough force equation, I'm talking about a description of space-time that can be easily understood. I never claimed to have come up with a new theory per se, just a better way of explaining it. In the process I found a way to explain certain other things, that may or may not be to ones liking. I agree that the checkered 'fabric' and planet (ball on a cushion) explains an ORBIT better, but not gravity itself per se. Anyways... I wasn't finished. *sheesh* So let me get to a part you MIGHT like.

Yay..! (about the sticky thing...) I asked the Mods, and they said they'd discuss it with Darren. I guess they decided it was worth it. I hope it will be useful to folks. As you may (or may not) have noticed that I slightly altered my signature, to 'advertise' the thread.

[_Owen_]

Ah, that is where I was confused, ok, it was an analogy, end of story. I would debate the validity of the argument that it is easier to understand, I had to do a seminar explaining general relativity to my class of somewhat unknowledgeable peers, it was hard enough trying to get them to grasp the fact that a ball will roll towards a hole, as things are pulled downward, now try getting them to understand that things move towards knots for no reason, you'll be there for weeks, lol. Anyways, continue I'm excited about the hyperspace part.

[Seastallion]

Ah, that is where I was confused, ok, it was an analogy, end of story. I would debate the validity of the argument that it is easier to understand, I had to do a seminar explaining general relativity to my class of somewhat unknowledgeable peers, it was hard enough trying to get them to grasp the fact that a ball will roll towards a hole, as things are pulled downward, now try getting them to understand that things move towards knots for no reason, you'll be there for weeks, lol. Anyways, continue I'm excited about the hyperspace part.

Actually, it isn't that difficult. If I shrunk you, and placed you on one of the threads, and sent you in the direction of knot, the thread would eventually lead you right into the knot. If you managed to get to a thread far enough away from the knot, you might walk close by the knot, but not actually into it. Just take the pic above, and trace your finger on one of the threads to see my point. If you choose a thread that gets too close to the knot, it will take you right into it. If you choose one that just gets close to the knot, it will take you closer to knot, but not actually to it. One flaw with that though, is that it doesn't show that your course would STAY changed in the altered direction. The 'ball and fabric' visual aid really works best there.

Ooh. I just had an idea.



There..! How's that?

[_Owen_]

Responding from my classmates' point of view, "But why, oh why, would I stay on the rope?"

Responding from my point of view, there is nothing pulling me towards the knot, I am just as likely to turn around and walk in the other direction. Yes, according to string theory, I would get there eventually, but that would defy gravity, would an asteroid travel around the whole universe just to hit earth or would it go straight for it, and then we get into the analogy or literalistic interpretation discussion, so lets just skip to the good part with the hyperdrive.

Also, that line you drew wouldn't represent an orbital path correctly, it would be a near perfect curve and while that may be an analogy it still has a literal meaning because you are refering to string theory.

[Seastallion]

Okay... On to the part I think people are more interested in.

I've already described the gravitational effects on the fabric of space-time. Now I'm going to try and explain how a Hyperspace window is formed. It is, in fact the opposite of the gravity field caused by celestial bodies.





It is the inverse of a gravitational knot. It might be referred to as a 'slip'. In actual cloth, the threads become loosened so that a hole is made between the threads. Of course that is just a 2-D example. There is in fact more at work going on.



In my next post I'll take it a step further.

[Seastallion]

Responding from my classmates' point of view, "But why, oh why, would I stay on the rope?"

Responding from my point of view, there is nothing pulling me towards the knot, I am just as likely to turn around and walk in the other direction. Yes, according to string theory, I would get there eventually, but that would defy gravity, would an asteroid travel around the whole universe just to hit earth or would it go straight for it, and then we get into the analogy or literalistic interpretation discussion, so lets just skip to the good part with the hyperdrive.

Also, that line you drew wouldn't represent an orbital path correctly, it would be a near perfect curve and while that may be an analogy it still has a literal meaning because you are refering to string theory.

That depends on if you have a choice. If your an inanimate object, you don't have a choice. If you have a ship, then you could change course... of course. Whether or not an object gets close enough to crash into a gravitational knot is by chance (unless you planned it).

As to the drawing... So I'm not a very good artist... SUE me..!

*Okay... after THIS post...*

[_Owen_]

There is only one problem I see with this, yet... your diagrams are assuming that there are strings everywhere and that they make up the universe in a uniform pattern, when in string theory, strings only exist where particles exist. It would be a logical assumption other than the fact that the threads wouldn't be close-knit most of the time anyways, therefore the fabric of space-time must be made of something else other than strings, therefore whatever you are going to use to make this hole will spread strings apart but you still have that dang fabric of space-time to go through. Maybe if we offer it ice cream it will sing and dance and we can sneak by.

[_Owen_]

I still don't see any reason why matter should be attracted to these knots, allthough to be fair the ball and sheet model doesn't offer any reason either, in fact it's almost counterproductive it offers gravity to help explain gravity, thank God relativity is more detailed, with numbers and such.

It's allright, I can't draw either. That's it! You sue me, then I'll sue you and we can both make money!

I'm off to bed it's one oclock here, but I'll reply in the morning.

[alaskannut]

Actually, we are having a discussion over on Stargate Omega (http://stargateomega.com/forum) about global warming. http://www.stargateomega.com/forum/showthread.php?t=672

spg_1983 has proposed that evidence exists that actually suggests the global temperature is falling, unfortunately he hasn't been by lately to support his accusations, but it is an interesting thought.

I don't know about global cooling but regional cooling is an expected consequence of the climactic/weather shifts brought on by global warming.

P.S. great thread guys Keep up the good work

[Seastallion]

I don't know about global cooling but regional cooling is an expected consequence of the climactic/weather shifts brought on by global warming.

P.S. great thread guys Keep up the good work

Thanks alaskannut..! It has turned out to be a fun thread, and hopefully others will find it useful as well. As immhotep has said, there is something to be learned from the various topics discussed in this thread. The Concordance is just the first part (though important..!), but this end of the thread is to allow us all to discuss either the concordance section, or any other topic. As you can see, we've been doing plenty.

[Seastallion]

There is only one problem I see with this, yet... your diagrams are assuming that there are strings everywhere and that they make up the universe in a uniform pattern, when in string theory, strings only exist where particles exist. It would be a logical assumption other than the fact that the threads wouldn't be close-knit most of the time anyways, therefore the fabric of space-time must be made of something else other than strings, therefore whatever you are going to use to make this hole will spread strings apart but you still have that dang fabric of space-time to go through. Maybe if we offer it ice cream it will sing and dance and we can sneak by.

First, keep in mind that this is all analogy. Not necessarily literal. Also, keep in mind that scientist believe that space is flooded with energy (the whole Zero Point Energy thing), and that energy is made up of 'particles' that are actually strings according to String Theory. It is interesting to note that the placements of the galaxies in the universe have a filamental struture. And of course, filaments are what? Strings.