The Sci. & Tech. Concordance and Discussion Thread

[_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.