if its science at work, why is there no Tesla/Moray style power plants (being talked about last episodes), even in the gardens of the scientists and authors of those that proclaim the science works? why is China, North Korea, Iran, or any third world country not exploiting this technology. rather than building massive coal, nuclear plants? oh, because it doesnt scale, its neat little lab experiments that dont work for usuable, industrial needs. If the only the elite hold the knowledge, then how come theres an internet full of the information, that isnt silenced? powerfull enough to hide (or not) all this secret knowledge, yet impotent to bringing down a some websites? never mind though, if it gives you pleasure, carry on oh i just wasteed 40 minutes of my life... he's a nice guy and good presenter, but what exactly was it all about? the science is flawed: what is gravity reflecting off to create the stading waves? the lecture is flawed: the entire demonstration fails to show either a video of or a toy model of actual working antigravity, just some graphics showing wave harmonics. and its relevence here is flawed: it explains nothing about speed of light. oh and nice parable of the "noise level"... you do understand thats a SF short story he is starting from, right? and you should read the novel Blue Yellow Tibia, you'd enjoy that.
China Korea, etc???? Mabe thats exactly why it is kept secret. This is just one little selected lesson on the subject. Speed of light is achieved using a artificial gravity well. Time dialation is a result of the combination of these in order to achieve extreme speeds. Mabe third world countries do explore albeit may take them longer. Why dont we know about it, perhaps they know to keep it under wraps also. I honestly dont know myself and I am hardly an expert. But lectures like this sure do entertain me at times. Have you seen the Thomas-Townsend-Brown capasitors? lifters? The internet also has that info to look at. Much of what Nicolai Tesla did, never reached the public domain. Look Aridash, I am hardly the super science expert that you are. I am a dumb blond female just trying to figure it all out too. Mabe I just wanna take part in a discussion waaaay outa my leaque.
im no science expert either, i just learn from books and internet sources that dont promte claims about science that are tied up with claims of a conspiracy to coverup UFOs/NWO etc. some of the science is often correct, but manipulated and presented to fit an agenda. somtimes it has novelty value. sometimes its just flawed. to understand science and physics try Hawking's "a brief history of time" as a starting point then some popular science books by Roger Penrose and Richard Feynman, not some mate of David "lizard people rule us" Icke.
Okay. Tbh i dont even touch on the lizard crap or neburu nonsense. i have to agree lot of the youtube stuff is pure garbage and fancifull.
mmmm, lightspeed a very interesting and weird topic. Try reading 'The Universe in a Nutshell' by Stephen Hawkins, he kinda explains things in a way even I could understand. and I have another nice one for ya (might be in here already, but I must admit I didnt read all the posts) If you travel in a spaceship at the speed of light and you turn on the headlights, what happens? do you get a beam of light in front of you like in a car at 50 mph or does the light never leave the light bulb, or maybe anything else??
The spacecraft wont have a need for old fashioned headlights. In fact if lightspeed is possible then the entire craft would illuminate. A different type of light source would be utilized should it be needed.
I went to a public lecture at the University of Nottingham with some friends last week. Its sort of been initially to do with celebrating last years national year of astronomy but very popular so they continued it this year. Anyhow this month's lecture was on black holes. It was really good. The guy had to explain a lot of stuff initially including things about light speed. Afraid I was never very good at about half of physics but one thing they definitely talked about was the "you are travelling at light speed and turn on the lights" conundrum. Apparently it HAS been proven that it doesn't matter what happens, you can never get "light speed + some other amount"... its just always light speed. No I don't understand it either... or know how they proved it but apparently they have. I could ask my housemate maybe. He came too and is studing for a PhD in physics. We often have chats about this kinda weirdness. He is very tolerant of me and is happy to break things down. Actually when I was unemployed my brain started melting and in a fit of panic I borrowed one of his text books that was a really accessible intro to space stuff... ok I say "really accessible", I mean it didn't hammer you with equations (at least for a while - and even when it did you didn't need to look at them just accept them) and was a fairly plain english intro. ah, here you go: An Introduction to Modern Cosmology, 2nd Edition: Amazon.co.uk: Andrew Liddle: Books You can even "look inside" edit: aww... wanna have another shot at reading it again now I just flipped through the "look inside" thing Wistrel
Hmmm, I had better not suggest reading "Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene hehehe... [for the curious: The Fabric of the Cosmos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] Excellent read tho.. in short, it's what the title says, explained in a way that is actually really interesting and in-depth! Ossi!
I didn't meant the subject ;) But the fact it's just white with black letters. Continuous text. 'smart' text in english, which isn't easy for me as my primary language is not english
I know that guy.. But he was kinda controversial because he filmed everything in poor quality, which couldn't show if it was real or faked. And uhm, if there is no gravity. Shouldn't that thing just float instead of flying away?
Should read the section on faster than speed of light here: Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and the hartman effect. Apparently light something can travel faster than speed of light but then it becomes "virtual" perhaps another "dimension" ... also this is interesting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3303699/We-have-broken-speed-of-light.html
Something in that article made me think.. If you move faster then light, and you would look back from where you came you would be able to see yourself...
Heres a good one: A fly/gnat flying at the speed of light crashes into a high speed train going at about 300 miles per hour. Will the train be derailed off the planet?
I highly doubt it, it doesn't gain any mass just because it has alot of speed. It would probably be crushed by air-resistance but besides that.. The mass remains the same, and It's squishy as fuck. So it would just splat really loud or much :D
No. You started with a wrong assumption: that you could acelerate a space shuttle to lightspeed You can't (even if you use all the energy in our known universe) (well that is the idea I got last time the laws that govern such high speed object were explained to me) Next step According to new theories some data shows that light was travelling faster at the begining near the begining of the universe (also strange to know that there was no light during the first instants of the universe, unless you mean light to be all kind of eletromagnetic radiation in which case it will be hard to tell) Now here is a trick question for you Speed is relative to the object and referencial from which it is measured So what is the speed of a photon if the referencial is "a near speed of light travelling proton going in the opposite direction" the answer is more almost 2 times the speed of light (numericaly) if you use average speed; (for instant speed I don't know, it probably is ~1 time the speed of light, depends on how things are defined) Another curious fact a couple of years it was detected a cosmic ray (usually they are near light speed protons) that was travelling at such high speed that after one year of travelling a photon going in the same direction would only be gaining it by one meter (their main question was what could accelerate that to such high speed that was near enough us) The part I retained was that even in total vaccum the high speed proton would be subjet to attriction and loosing energy therefore loosing speed Physics is the art of prediction. (but there is so much math in it this days that most artists are scared away).
