Gravity indeed does warp space and time? Einstein Prediction

[hergieburbur]

Sure there is: Money and power. The oil co's have been allowed to become too powerful. They make near criminal profits, start wars to cut their bottom lines, and buy up the patents, or otherwise "remove" most alternative fuels and more efficient engines. Think about it, in WWII, most aircraft engines got around 60 Miles per gallon, and were basically large automobile engines. Are they trying to tell us that in nearly 70 years, nobody has figured out how to shrink those engines and port them to cars?

Another interesting thought: Purdue scientists explore sustainable bio-fuels. Do some research, ethanol is NOT the answer. It would take nearly 28% of the total US landmass to meat our fuel needs, not to mention the possible harmful respiratory effects that are just now being explored...

 

[hergieburbur]

I don't think seaweed would be a good source of ethanol. Besides, the production processes for ethanol are currently horribly inefficient. It wold actually better to use that same biomass to produce vegetable oil that could be used to replace diesel fuel. However, ethanol in cars is more media friendly. There are also concerns over whether ethanol is really any better for the environment or air quality, as expressed here and other places. There are also many concerns about whether ethanol fuel production has a negative energy balance (takes more energy to produce than it yields), as shown here and here (see energy balance).

On top of that, we are already experiencing a near critical loss of biodiversity and plant-life loss in the worlds oceans (oceanic plant life is responsible for most of Earth's oxygen production). These problems may prove to be more critical to the environment than global warming. Using the worlds seaweed for a fuel source would likely only compound those problems.

I do think the method of combining hydrogen with carbon that Purdue and others are exploring looks very promising, especially since it could use existing fuel distribution systems, unlike hydrogen or other fuels.

 

[hergieburbur]

I'm not sure, but I think it has to do with the fact that its harder to store oxygen in an efficient, non explosive form and get it to burn in a controlled manner. Also, I think that carbon monoxide would be a byproduct of the process, which would not be a good thing.

 

[r0x0r]

Sure there is: Money and power. The oil co's have been allowed to become too powerful. They make near criminal profits, start wars to cut their bottom lines, and buy up the patents, or otherwise "remove" most alternative fuels and more efficient engines. Think about it, in WWII, most aircraft engines got around 60 Miles per gallon, and were basically large automobile engines. Are they trying to tell us that in nearly 70 years, nobody has figured out how to shrink those engines and port them to cars?

No good reason. Sorry, I should have emphasised that.

Have you heard of the MYT engine? www.angellabsllc.com

Also check out this HH2O powered car: http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1147691355/Water_Power

And if you tune your car correctly ethanol will give you more power and a cleaner engine than conventional fuel (Source: High Performance Imports magazine Australia).

 

[JonnyDough]

The climate change is what's spurred me to rant. I believe that we are in more trouble than we can imagine. Species all over earth are turning up in the news...dying, in places they shouldn't be, etc. It's frightening all the news coming in about the environment all of a sudden. We need DRASTIC change, and LEADERS at this point in time. We need to THINK, and be united. We can't afford not to be. We have failed to forsee the future and to plan. We haven't been thinking about sustainability, only about today. We can't afford that luxury anymore. If we're lucky, it's not too late. I personally believe that religion is as much of a scorn for humanity as it is an answer to problems for some people. I think it's another thing that causes differences, that blinds us from the truth and from seeking real solutions to our problems. We can feel so strongly and believe in gods, but we can't believe in ourselves and in things put in front of us. We believe that our physical problems are real, but that our physicality is not. Somehow our problems can haunt us, but that after the pain comes a glorified rebirth. Yet here we are, ignoring the needs of those yet to be born. How can the creator make us, and then punish us if we get caught up in life and fail to understand what it is he expects us to? How can we be human, and be damned for what we are? Does life not hold enough natural retribution for our actions? How much pain must we suffer to be good enough to have eternal life? Why do we need eternal life? Isn't an oasis in the sky with nothing but goodness, boring and meaningless also? I believe that death is a gift, it's a break from the struggles and part of the universe's cycle. Many religions fail to acknowledge that it is, and fail to think beyond and question the written text. Simply accepting something written or taught is easier than questioning it I guess. Religion "teaches" (brainwashes) children to become part of it's numbers, some start with birth. If you consider that you have around 100 years to live or less, and don't live it in a way that actually does something to further mankind, what good are you to anyone else really? You're just living in the times, and you've become forgotten dust like everyone else. We glorify sports stars, and Hollywood actors...and for what? They're people like us. Ability and achievement are nothing if they don't advance the quality of life for people. Producing a good movie is not adding to the quality of life for mankind when there are sick and starving people who don't even have clean water. We value people, not humanity, and I think that attitude could be changed. Many cultures around the world are much more noble and mature in this regard, and the freedoms we preach about to them, about how we have a right to be selfish and to steal and lie and live our dreams while they are stuck in a place with little hope of rescue disgusts me. We should not have AIDS, famine, or war. There are masses dying and in pain and why? We promote our religions and our wars and our way of life, instead of promoting education and real solutions. We spend billions of dollars towards building airplanes, battleships and tanks, that do nothing but cause destruction and take lives. What if all that effort and money was spent bringing people a higher quality of life and growing food for them instead? What if we built homes instead of bombs? Would diplomacy such as this not work in the mass majority of the world to gain respect and to get the resources we desire better than bombs? If the president would offer roadways, schools, wells, and fields of grain to countries opposing each other, instead of providing them with guns and stealing their oil...do you think that perhaps they would be more ready to agree to peace, to education of their people, to trade? Would you rather I kill your family, or build you a school so that your kids can learn? Again I repeat...this is a NEW generation. A WORLD generation. We will continue the cries for peace they let loose in the 60's. We are not radicals, we are humans. We will not let barriers of language and government dictate the outcome for our earth. I say we stand together, and oppose those who oppose humanity. And I say we do it not with guns, but with our voices in a united front. It is easy to silence the voice of a single individual. But it is impossible to break the spirit of the world if it stands together as one. I ask again, who is ready to make a change in the world for good? Who is ready to abolish war, to outlaw it, or the first person to strike a blow be cast out by all? If all of the Iraqi's were to refuse refuge to those with a gun, where would they hide then? If American soldiers would refuse to fight, who would then need to challenge us? If we had a united world force that would come to the aid of anyone being persecuted, and disbanded armies, then what armies would fight? What wars would there be? What if America decided to turn in all the guns and bullets and used the metal to build wind turbines? How many people would die then? How much pollution would America create? Perhaps the world can be changed on belief, but it is a sad day in the timeline of mankind when it takes a global crisis to cause us to change.

 

[eric54]

If there is no point to living, if there is no use for the struggle, and if there is no use for life, what good is a united front? If death is a means of escape, than war is an escape for many people. Would you stand up to a man with a gun seeking refuge in your home? The problem isn’t unity at all, it’s the fact there IS so much unity based on different fronts. If you are certain your methods would bring world peace, you would have to agree to live by those methods. In fact, let’s say you want to share your methods with others, and your movement grows. Let’s say you start teaching younger and younger people about your methods, would that end the dissention? The problem is that while one hand is slapping organized teachings, the other is making another. If everyone belonged to one organization of ethical values, would the world change? No, because only bad people do something when good people don’t. That is the cause for what we've seen in the world today. Who will fight the ones who refuse to believe in your new methods? En masse the method seems to hold true, but hold your own son killed by another with other beliefs and tell the world you don’t aren’t affected by it! Children are being killed without the chance of living. Is that just? Where is their voice? Instead it’s shrouded by greedy lifestyles and selfish justifications.

You're right that we need to be united, but you're wrong that religion is the root of dissention of peoples. You state the golden rule but bash the foundation of it; you accuse religion of brainwashing when you want to do the same. Those who have the world to gain lose themselves and gain the world.

Throwing our defenses away would do nothing. But instead, making an army of apostolic warriors who fed the poor, build farms for the needs, and dug wells for the thirsty would surely help. How many of us are willing to be murdered for this cause though? Can you accept collateral damage? What if providing peace means removing the warmongers? If you are prevented from helping others because a leader and his guns stop you, is it then okay to shoot? Wars happen because one ideal is forced upon another ideal, it always sounds pretty like it will end suffering. Something every leader of every war has used to move his army of death. Hitler promised economic prosperity, a proud, clean, and powerful nation. He failed to mention the cost would be war and genocide.

My point is, peace seeking religions have always pointed out what each person individually needs to do in order to prevent violent dissention. If you need to take a look at what harm these "books" have taken on this world, I suggest you read it and explain to me how "love your neighbor like yourself" should not be part of an ideology. After all, you're accusing me of following it blindly, but you fail to see that for your rite to be accepted you're asking others to throw theirs away. You can see where that would lead you, good luck not starting a war with that ideology.

 

[mitch074]

I haven't read the whole thread; it's gone way off computer-related topics.

I'd like to add some data to put things into perspective:
- He didn't come up with the whole of his theories on relativity: 3/4th of it was written beforehand by a little known French(?) physicist he met at the Patents office. He did complete it though, and came up with e=mc²
- Einstein wasn't alone in doing his computations: his wife was a very good mathematician and the one to prove his ideas through maths - the ideas to prove were his though.
- He was not infallible: he affirmed the universe's expansion rate had stabilized. It was later on discovered that his demonstration contained an error. Too bad.
- At age nine, Einstein was terrible at maths. Obviously he got better.

Note: the Wikipedia entry mentions a speech impediment and a gift at maths, I know; however, said maths problems ended when he was nine, because a teacher's remark piqued him and he decided to overcome his weaknesses at maths.

 

[immagikman]

I heard that Barcelona was designed to generate so much thermal exhaust that it would warp space/time to displace the the residual heat to the past, which is why we are currently having global warming... :lol:

 

[hergieburbur]

The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.

- Albert Einstein

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Time is only relative to the dimension you're in. Therefore, people age slower living on top of a mountain because their day is longer. /quote]

Respectfully, I think you have that backwards. Time slows down the deeper you go into a gravity well. So people living on a mountaintop would experience a nanoscopically faster rate of the passage of time, relative to people living on the surface of Earth.

As somebody posted earlier, this was proven by having to correct the onboard clocks of the GPS satellites.

At the event horizon of a black hole, time would slow infinitely, relatively speaking .

The climate change is what's spurred me to rant. I believe that we are in more trouble than we can imagine. Species all over earth are turning up in the news...dying, in places they shouldn't be, etc.

Although I agree that global warming is occuring, I dunno if you can make such a simplistic connection with species die-off. There's an interesting article that I'll have to dig up a link for, noting that historically extreme species die-offs of 25% or more occur every 64 million years which coincides with the periods of time when the sun (and associated planets including Earth) rise far enough above the northern galactic plane so that we are no longer protected from cosmic radiation by the galactic magnetic field, as the galaxy travels towards the Virgo cluster. In other words, this is similar to what happens when astronauts travel past the Van Allen belts which protect the Earth from solar ionic radiation by magnetic fields, except astronauts don't generally spend enough time outside the zone of protection to reproduce hundreds of generations and induce too many non-beneficial mutations into the species .

As for religion, various human shortcomings, etc. that would be a topic for another thread, assuming this thread still has a topic . However just remember that if you believe in evolution, at our core level of being, we are all cold-blooded reptilian-brained self-preservationists. Religion could be viewed as a necessary Band-aid for controlling that behavior, since even a reptile would be interested in preserving its eternal life in the hereafter.

 

[corvetteguy]

Solar power is dumb as a main power source becuase it takes at optimum conditions, 10 years to recoup the energy it took to make the panel, and the things barely last 20...

 

[JDB1986]

The problem with the idea of making the cpu's faster, isn't that feasible. In actuallity in a gravity field, for everything outside it, everything inside appears slower. So in actuallity it would slow down the processor. They have also been measuring the bend of space for a while. It was confirmed in the 20's they noticed that light bent around the sun so stars that were in actuallity behind it, appeared to be to the side of the sun. However awesome news none the less. This is the first time I've heard about measuring time dilation in a gravitational field. Let alone earths relatively small gravitational pull.

 

[corvetteguy]

The problem with the idea of making the cpu's faster, isn't that feasible. In actuallity in a gravity field, for everything outside it, everything inside appears slower. So in actuallity it would slow down the processor. They have also been measuring the bend of space for a while. It was confirmed in the 20's they noticed that light bent around the sun so stars that were in actuallity behind it, appeared to be to the side of the sun. However awesome news none the less. This is the first time I've heard about measuring time dilation in a gravitational field. Let alone earths relatively small gravitational pull.

So what we really should be focusing on it making anti gravity. Now that would be cool, but it could be dangerous, especially if it were to block gravity from earth to anything over the material like i read in a book once, by that guy that wrote war of the wolrds

 

[dragonsprayer]

did i tell you guys about the hyper magnetic drive i invented?

its fed by a z machine - the z machine puts out more x-ray energy then its fed.

it works like a reverse:
hyper magnetic drive is power by the z-machine which generated 4 times the power that is put it. Half the out put is channeled to reverse -xray machine that generates the power the drive the z-generator the other half is focused out the back and directed by massive magnetic field like very large collider - so do not worry! I was going to build one but my time machine has not appeared let to move into the future to make it.

 

[JonnyDough]

If there is no point to living, if there is no use for the struggle, and if there is no use for life, what good is a united front? If death is a means of escape, than war is an escape for many people. Would you stand up to a man with a gun seeking refuge in your home? The problem isn’t unity at all, it’s the fact there IS so much unity based on different fronts. If you are certain your methods would bring world peace, you would have to agree to live by those methods. In fact, let’s say you want to share your methods with others, and your movement grows. Let’s say you start teaching younger and younger people about your methods, would that end the dissention? The problem is that while one hand is slapping organized teachings, the other is making another. If everyone belonged to one organization of ethical values, would the world change? No, because only bad people do something when good people don’t. That is the cause for what we've seen in the world today. Who will fight the ones who refuse to believe in your new methods? En masse the method seems to hold true, but hold your own son killed by another with other beliefs and tell the world you don’t aren’t affected by it! Children are being killed without the chance of living. Is that just? Where is their voice? Instead it’s shrouded by greedy lifestyles and selfish justifications.

You're right that we need to be united, but you're wrong that religion is the root of dissention of peoples. You state the golden rule but bash the foundation of it; you accuse religion of brainwashing when you want to do the same. Those who have the world to gain lose themselves and gain the world.

Throwing our defenses away would do nothing. But instead, making an army of apostolic warriors who fed the poor, build farms for the needs, and dug wells for the thirsty would surely help. How many of us are willing to be murdered for this cause though? Can you accept collateral damage? What if providing peace means removing the warmongers? If you are prevented from helping others because a leader and his guns stop you, is it then okay to shoot? Wars happen because one ideal is forced upon another ideal, it always sounds pretty like it will end suffering. Something every leader of every war has used to move his army of death. Hitler promised economic prosperity, a proud, clean, and powerful nation. He failed to mention the cost would be war and genocide.

My point is, peace seeking religions have always pointed out what each person individually needs to do in order to prevent violent dissention. If you need to take a look at what harm these "books" have taken on this world, I suggest you read it and explain to me how "love your neighbor like yourself" should not be part of an ideology. After all, you're accusing me of following it blindly, but you fail to see that for your rite to be accepted you're asking others to throw theirs away. You can see where that would lead you, good luck not starting a war with that ideology.

First, let me say that I did not zero in on any one religion, or any part of it. Most religions are based on some high moral values. I understand what leadership and motivation are, I'm not earning a degree in management and learning nothing. Perhaps you're forgetting Constantine, The Martyr's Book of Mirrors (one of the most horrid and largest published books available, look into it), and maybe you're forgetting about how Islamic and Muslim faith is used to motivate war as well.

You spoke of collateral damage. Are we not already paying with taxation, the deaths of our families, and the impact of the "coolness" of war on the children of tomorrow? How many soldiers with families stop to think about how it's cool for daddy to hold a gun and kill people...that's what it is, isn't it? Afterall, you just said wars are caused by idealism...so what are we teaching our children? That our ideals are better than other peoples and so we should kill them. Nobody takes the time to look at things in black and white. Sure there are grays to every situation...but how many soldiers have died in wars that last for decades and not know what they're really dying for? Even our own government here in the US is fighting amongst itself about being in Iraq...why is that? Because maybe we're not really sure why we're even there? The soldiers miss their families...and many people are in support of the soldiers but not in support of the war. Here we are supporting a government who's supposedly supporting our ideals by sending our brothers and sisters to occupy a foreign land, and the whole time we're not even sure what we're doing there....except that now we're in so deep we can't back out. Or can we? Could we pull our troops out of Iraq now? Or do we need to kill double the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE that we have already so that we no longer have to fear the big giant...Isn't Saddam dead?

When I say united, I mean an end to war. We simply refuse to fight. Unless of course there is an oppression. And if there is oppression, the oppressed must ask the WORLD for help. The United States does not need to decide on it's own that Iraq is in need of occupation. That's just spreading our idealism...same as everyone else. How is that freedom?

 

[r0x0r]

Solar power is dumb as a main power source becuase it takes at optimum conditions, 10 years to recoup the energy it took to make the panel, and the things barely last 20...

So that's 10 years of clean energy, compared to none with current coal power stations.

By the way, I also wrote that I live in a country with the world's second largest desert and over 300 days of sun each year. I agree that solar is not suited for every part of the world, but where I live it definitely is. Unfortunately our government is a bunch of red-tape loving beauracrats, so nothing good will ever come out of the massive potential we have.

and maybe you're forgetting about how Islamic and Muslim faith is used to motivate war as well.

And of course Christianity is innocent of this...

I used to teach Iraqi and Iranian immigrants/refugees English. You'd be hard pressed to find a nicer group of people.

 

[dasickninja]

Leave Islam out of this. :x

 

[hergieburbur]

First off, I gotta say that bringing any religion into the discussion is dangerous ground. Second, speaking as a Christian, I gotta say that to claim Islam is used to motivate war is to unfairly focus in on one religion. The faith itself does not promote war any more than any other religion. Yes there are some that use the religion as an excuse for war, but perhaps you have heard of the the "white mans burden", or the crusades, or the inquisition? My point is that any religion can be used as an excuse for war by war-mongering people. Thats does not mean the religion itself encourages war. Besides, when's the last time we were invaded by a Muslim country?

Further, if you look into it, the fast majority of history's wars were started over either religion or money (in the form of resources and economic power).

 

[aleric]

So, time speeds up in a gravitational field?

Here's the design of my new dual core PC:


[BL1] [CPU1]-----------------

-----------------[CPU2] [BL2]


[BL1] and [BL2] are two spherical blackholes that rotate
so fast that their outer surface goes nearly with the speed of
light, further, and significantly increasing their mass.

[CPU1] and [CPU2] are lowered into the gravitational field,
close the surface from where light cannot escape. The gravitational
pull is so large that the WHOLE rotates by itself around the

,
so that centrifugal acceleration compensates the strength at which
the BL's are pulled towards the CPU's and the distance remains
constant. The cables that connect the CPUs to the CENTER are long
enough so that it is relatively safe there, and possible, to have
more equipment in the CENTER - like solar panels, and a transmitter
that allows me to communicate with the device.

Pros: Very fast computing
Cons: Can only be safely operated from a distance, so that the
latency from me to the PC and back is several minutes.​

 

[hergieburbur]

you forgot one other con: The force of the gravitational field would likely rip the CPUs apart atom by atom before you ever get to use them. :twisted:

 

[dasickninja]

First off, I gotta say that bringing any religion into the discussion is dangerous ground. Second, speaking as a Christian, I gotta say that to claim Islam is used to motivate war is to unfairly focus in on one religion. The faith itself does not promote war any more than any other religion. Yes there are some that use the religion as an excuse for war, but perhaps you have heard of the the "white mans burden", or the crusades, or the inquisition? My point is that any religion can be used as an excuse for war by war-mongering people. Thats does not mean the religion itself encourages war. Besides, when's the last time we were invaded by a Muslim country?

Further, if you look into it, the fast majority of history's wars were started over either religion or money (in the form of resources and economic power).

Here here.

 

[cal7]

Religion was always used by "smart" people to manipulate others for any reason someone can think of and since there are still people that religion means something to them , i cant see how that will change in the future.

 

[hergieburbur]

What you said is sadly very true. But I don't think that being smart or intelligent (there is a difference), necessarily rules out being religious. I am a very smart and intelligent person, and I am still somewhat religious (no zealot). Though I do not take the teachings of men with their own motives on blind faith without thinking about how those teachings fit in with my own personal beliefs first.

 

[JonnyDough]

We need a permanent solution to energy, nothing temporary will do. The costs are too high to implement it. 10 years is nothing compared to the last 100 years of pollution. We need solar energy on a massive scale. We need those shark tail generators they're putting in the oceans. We need air turbines too.

As for mentioning Christianity, I mentioned Constantine. He is the epitomy of the dastardly deeds done by the Christian church in my opinion. His logic was somewhat twisted, as he baptised his whole body but not his hand so he could still wage war in the name of the church. Please either learn reading comprehension, or study up, but quite chastising me for being against ALL religion when I have clearly mentioned that I'm not partial to one. For all you know, I'm Jewish, Roman Catholic, a pagan, and a Buddhist.

 

[cal7]

I`m quite like you actually, i consider myself a religius person but not blind as well.You can really convert "smart" to whatever this means in a certain period of history."smart" really meant "educated" for a very long period of human history.Its a lot easier to use people that are not , even the church knows that