Those points are all correct and the reason - magnetic fields are rounded. So many of my first posts in this topic are inaccurate due to the lack of knowledge but after this discussion I see how pi exists just like every body else on earth says it exists. So could we talk about pi now because I'm hungry.
Thank Lud - just mark this thread closed and be done with it. If you want to espouse your religious views on Evolution, start a new thread.
Yes that is correct. For example if we found a fossil the shape of a cube and none like it then people would start to think of an explanation or an alternative theory.
a fossil in the shape of a cube?? Er, wtf, um how can you base your argument on something that has not happened?
It is only when it's called darwins law that it is fact. However since it's called darwins theory that gives room for alteration of the theory.
Darwin's Theory (as you call it) has been altered quite a bit since the book was written. This is how science works. You think of something; work up a hypothesis; decide how to test it and when it passes your tests you make it a theory. As a theory, you continue to test - when something does not fit the theory as stated you modify the theory to take the new data into account. This is how science works. When Einstein worked out the details of relativity, he did not disprove Newton - he incorporated Newton's theories into his own. Newton's theories still stand. Same with the theory of Evolution it is tested and modified as new data come in. With the work of Gregor Mendel, much of Darwin's work was modified/amplified to include genetics. If you deny evolution, you deny genetics, germ theory, antibiotics, and much of discoveries of modern medicine.
Well that string was a direct quote from a movie supporting darwins theory and is as …
I never said that my theories where 100% accurate or that they are even true. Check the work theory in the dictionary or from the movie "Darwins theory - The beagle voyage". You will find in that non-fiction film a scientific case that challenged Darwins theory. In that case the scientists had to define the word "theory". That definition was "An alternative view to a subject just like how gravity is a theory...". And using that definition I am providing theories not facts! The definition of the word "fact" is very different to the word "theory" as theories are not always true and are just another way of looking at the subject. So with that being said my statements are theories and I strongly support/believe them...
OMG! You are quoting some creationist movie about Darwin's life to support your lack of thought? How did you bring theory of gravity into your lack of thought? Every damn time someone digs up a fossil, the theory of evolution is put to the test and it passes every time.
I never understood the 'war on xmas' stuff - how is "Happy Holidays" an evil thing? Christmas is Dec. 25th - that is the day to wish someone a Merry Christmas. Do you wish someone 'happy Thanksgiving for weeks before the day? The winter solstice is such a good time for a holiday that almost all religions have a 'special' day during that time of the year. Rather than try to remember all those different holidays, it seems to me that Happy Holidays works pretty well.
Heh! I snorted mace and nutmeg in my youth - I definitely prefer acid, mushrooms and/or mescaline -- I DID prefer, I am too old to let go like that any more.
Read the dictionary properly (link). Definition 5 of a theory: a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. That describes it perfectly so try using a dictionary yourself more often. This reminds me of the case of evolution where the scientists had to define what a theory is.
Let me explain something to you about dictionaries: Those definitions that are listed first are considered the best definition; you offer us definition #5 just barely above guess or conjecture.. I read the links I post and I understand them. I think guess describes you idea perfectly. In order for you to have a system or method, you must offer more that "I think this so it must be correct".
cwarn - you do not have theories, you do not even have hypotheses, you only have random 'thingies' that you try to string together. You do not even seem to understand the meaning of the few facts you repeat to support your 'thingies'.
Theory
Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
Hypothesis
A hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation to some phenomenon or event. A useful hypothesis is a testable statement which may include a prediction.
Go to your nearest sidewalk, note that it is one unit wide and on unit long, now tell me you can't walk from one corner to another.
The 'grid' is an artifact of Cartesian math, it is not real. Have you ever plotted a line on a grid? Did your teacher make you stay on the lines? Did your teacher ever say anything about having to stay on the lines? How are the lines like barriers?
Are you familiar with Euclid and/or Euclidean space? Do you know non-Euclidean geometry?
Here is one of the good things that has come out of this discussion: Wolfram Math World and an example of what may be a Hilbert Space and to stay on topic (so to speak), here are some fun PI demonstrations
I get what your saying but theoretically if we had the technology (which we don't) then we could construct a circle which would almost immediately be blown out of shape by gravity. That is theoretical. Also if electrons make an atom, what substance makes the electrons and what shape are they? Just curious...
The substance that makes up electrons? This is a bizarre question as electrons are 'fundamental' leptons which are a fundamental particle/wave (remember you can not think of electrons as just particles; they are also a wave function - and their behavior is both particle and wave and how you 'perceive' them is a function of your method of perception). A proton is a neutron minus an electron in an old-fashioned physics sort of way; in quantum theory a proton is composed of Up+Up+Down quarks and a neutron is Up+Down+Down quarks. In string theory, an electron is a closed-loop that vibrates/oscillates on different axes but you do not want to go there.
Also as for why pi may not exist in my theory is that if the substance which makes all elements around us is a cube then that would mean the MS Paint model is very accurate. If however that substance is a cypher and it's self force pull comes from at least 18 directions then pi exists. But for now I shall assume that ultimately everything is made of cubes.
Not sure how you are using 'cypher' here; not sure what you are referencing with …
I remember seeing on a documentary about the race to see what makes up the missing proportion of the universe and turned out the missing 70% of our universe was energy. That makes the other 30% other elements such as solids, liquids etc. Although it goes into greater detail that is the basic concept and how it relates to this - well we were talking about that 30% of our universe and not the other 70% which is made of energy.
The one element that makes up the 30% of the universe. There is one element for all and what it is I don't know but I am guessing electrons.
If 70% of the universe is energy then 70% of the universe cannot be a particle and 30% of the universe cannot be a particular particle. Even though matter and energy dance around the speed of light, it is not allowed to count particles as energy or energy as particles. Looking at those numbers, I am reminded of the search for 'dark matter' - we can account for 70% of the mass in the universe but 30% is 'missing' and called 'dark matter' for want of a better term.
Theories about dark matter abound - from "if you assume an infinitely small amount of mass to a neutrino, you could account for the missing mass" to "the missing matter is in a different dimension".
Current thought is that dark matter is composed of WIMPs (weakly interacting …
Well electrons are charges of electricity aren't they?
no electrons are not charges of electricity.
So wouldn't there be another substance which would make up everything around us.
ftw?
Now that I think about it, it would be electrons that make up 70% of the universe but not the other 30% we are talking about
How do you come up with this stuff? 70% by volume? by mass?
Although I have limited knowledge in this area I do know a few basic things.
we can see that you have a limited knowledge and do not even understand the basics
And an atom was an example. I could have just as easily said a particle. But you get the general idea.
An atom/particle/electron is an example of what?
Electrons are not charges of electricity; electrons can be viewed as a particle with a negative electrical charge and a spin of 1/2 the value of the Planck Constant ( h-bar, see forumla) which points right back to PI because PI in its irrational infinity is required to determine the Planck Constant.
I was told it is safest to just say "I work for the Treasury Department" so i don't scare anyone away - I am going to be a customer service rep for the IRS.
I was hoping to let him off the hook by assuming it was a joke but he just would not let it go. I think he should read Flatland and see how polygons are made into circles.
What he does not understand is that there are no straight lines in a circle and in any paint/graphics program it is always a straight line between each pixel - ie if the circumference of a circle was made up of one million pixels, it would not be a circle, it would be a polygon of 1 million sides. You can use Pythagoras' theorem to calculate a reasonable facsimile of PI- just create an internal and an external polygon on the circle. Now imagine 3 ants walking - one walks on the perimeter of the internal polygon, one walks on the perimeter of the external polygon and one walking on the perimeter of the circle and the problem is to get the 3 ants to travel the same distance. Using the Pythagorean Theorem to calculate length of each side of the inner polygon and the outer polygon, add them up and divide by the 2*radius/diagonal and average the answer and you get a pretty good approximation of PI - only if you do it by hand. When You do it by binary computer errors begin to creep in around 32768 sides - the approximation is good to about 9 decimal places (3.141592653).
Some of the newer tattoo inks are micro encapsulated pigments that are permanent(?) until hit with a particular laser beam that vaporizes the coating and it is all absorbed and disposed of by the body.
You are probably going to have to buy a new fan; buy one specific for your processor - get a big honking copper-vaned, 120 cm fan. You will probably have to remove your cpu so you can get the fan off of it; make sure you have some thermal paste - silver-based - should take care of it.
Varies - I spent my 40th in a cabin in Montana drinking 40 year old port (Fonseca) with family and friends; spent my 30th tied up to the log boom at a SeaFair unlimited hydroplane race; spent my 60th with my long time companion in a bar in Pony Montana - so let's just say varied.
I also have a theory and am still working on a formula to prove that pi is not infinite in length. If pi were infinite in length then the circle would have have an infinite circumference. And using MS Paint I have found that pi is not always 3.1415. It can vary depending on the size of the circle. For example, a circle about 6 atoms in diameter will produce pi of 3 instead of 3.1415... This can be proven with 2d cg models so try to draw a perfect circle in MS Paint. Then count how many dots in the circumference and divide it by the number of dots in the diameter and you will rarely get pi to more than 1 digit for a small circle.
You are trying to disprove PI using a Microsoft product as proof? I love your sense of humor.
Thanks! I had forgotten that movie - why this thread didn't bring it up to the fore I will never understand. That scene with the power drill is ..... scary.
Isaac Asimov posited that if there was a god - the place to put the evidence was in PI.
Consider best way to get a 'true' random number is to use a pseudo-random number to point to digit in PI and use that number to find a digit in PI. So if PI is completely random then what better place for proof to show up.
We can produce that much energy. As some guys theory (forget the name probably newton) says that for every action made by a force there as an equal reaction. So that means if we can make a narrow consentrated impact on mars then we would push it in the direction we like. And how to create the energy... Simply first create a floating space station that always stays in the same position of space. Then create a rip in the universe which is stored in a generater and collect all of the energy that bursts out of the rip into a buffer. From that buffer/zpm it can then be taken to another location where it is usefull however the power is always being generated in the same spot. So that would be a great form of unlimited energy which will easily do the job once we have the technology.
Well, actually I was thinking more like creating a small black hole and punching through back to the Big Bang and borrow some of that energy and then, if we build a huge space station around the black hole to anchor a large spring out to the station and store the energy from the big bang by winding up the space station. We could then move the black hole to the center of Mars and let spring unwind stopping Mars. Then move the space station to where we want the new Mars orbit to be and voilà the spring snaps Mars …
And thank you for actually reading my question. First, is it actually necessary to stop Mar's revolution to change the orbit? I don't see another way, but I'm way out of my field here. I did get to work on the first Lunar Lander when I was at Grumman in the late 60's, but I was in instrumentation. Logistics would certainly be a big factor. I'm more inclined to shuttle personnel and equipment from an orbiting platform than to establish a full-fledged colony. There would need to be some kind of Mars side installation, of course. I see the engines arranged installed and arranged such that they can be rotated in the proper direction to oppose the rotation of Mars, and to gradually apply the necessary force to slow and stop it. Later, they would be swiveled to apply the necessary force to change the orbit.
You do not seem to understand the implications of your question and my answer. So I will spell it out for you:
The engineering project you propose (changing Mars' orbit) is larger by a factor of 100 than the problem you propose to solve (the colonization of Mars).
You state the estimate of $1 trillion over 10 years to get to Mars and you think a project that would cost over $100 trillion and take at least 100 years and offer no guarantee of success is a good solution? You do not even know if you need to stop Mars' …
Perhaps the OP means "cute" girl? That 'e' can make a lot of difference :)
Nope, I bet the OP is into one of those odd subcultures that is into blades - ESL speakers really open up the possibilities for misunderstandings. The OP wants to 'friendship' someone - is that a euphemism?
I think, Earth is the right place to live. If we, the humans, avoid making our life sophisticated with the help of technology; automatically by evolution we will be capable to tolerate the temperature or whatever it will be.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here: Are you suggesting it is our technology that is the problem? Are you suggesting that evolution is the solution?
From the very first Post:"It seems to me we need to stop the rotation first, in order to apply directional force to change the orbit. I'm thinking many large rocket engines arranged along the equator (Fusion powered, of course)." In problems like this it's important to understand the objective, and it seems to me from your answers that you haven't been paying attention. I am now mounting a small, gimballed jet engine on the front of your car on the frozen lake, and using a computer to control its thrust. It's now stopped.
Thank you for actually responding to my questions.
Now, I have worked out how much energy you are going to need to stop the rotation (I will allow you to hand-wave the fusion engines), how will you apply it? You probably do not want to release the full 133,190,011,230 mT at one time.
I am not up on planetary mechanics so I am interested in what will happen to the angular momentum - will changing rotation change revolution? There is quite a bit of angular momentum in Mars' revolving around the sun and I am pretty sure that there is a pretty strong relationship between the 2.
While I was thinking about that, stumbled over the engineering staff working on the installation of the fusions engines. A project that size would take a huge staff. There would be the engineers who work on the engines, the staff needed to keep the engineers …
I've never thought of you as a jerk prior to that post, but I've changed my mind. Go back to basic physics and vectors. Even with your apparently very limited knowledge and imagination you should be able to solve your frozen lake problem. I obviously can't control who participates in this thread, but I'd appreciate it if the Philistines would just move on.
In basic physics we learned about vectors, so
You still have not explained how you will stop the car. Does this 'opposite force' appear out of nowhere? Please bring the car to a halt - use your knowledge of vectors to explain where the energy of the car goes; while you are at it explain how you apply this 'opposite force'. I might be a jerk but you have not offered anything to your own thread but fairy dust and mystical hand-waving smoke and mirrors.
There's no theoretical reason a planet's orbit can't be changed.
Changing a planets orbit is not what you are postulating; what you postulate is stopping a planets rotation which is not anything like changing a planets orbit.
I have a set of Feynman's lectures on physics here (I: 18-5) where he states that (much math here that you can read for yourself sometime) "One extremely important case of the [above] theorem is the law of conservation of angular momentum: if no external torques act upon a system of particles, the angular momentum remains constant. [...] For …
Paul - you might notice that hughv is a complete wank - unable to offer the slightest support for any of his ideas other than "they laughed at..." as if that explained, supported, or even hinted at a wisp of an idea. I think he read/watches syfy and thinks this gives him an idea of how the universe works.
Hugh - first explain to me how you will stop a car traveling 140 miles per hour on a frozen lake. If you can stop it, then I might be interested in your ideas about how to stop 'just numbers' of angular momentum
Nobody said a thing about stopping earth's rotation. We're talking about Mars here. Mars rotation is 869/kph at the equator, about 540 miles per hour. Maybe you're having trouble with the concept: slow it down until stops, apply enough force to change the orbit until it's closer to the Sun.
this is the speed - you have to include the mass in the equation to grasp the energy required
I haven't heard a single reason it can't be done.
I have not heard a single way that you could even START the process to do this. Give us a clue about how you expect to accomplish the slowing of Mars to a stop, moving its orbit, then restarting it.
How does it being Mars rather than earth make a difference? What force could you apply to stop it? How would you even begin to think that you could remove billions of tons of angular momentum?
If you would like me to calculate the rotational energy stored in the Mars system, I probably could but be a dear and tell me what would be used to slow the rotation? How would you prevent Mars from flying off out of the system or falling into the sun? Where are you putting the energy removed from the system (conservation of energy rules apply).
Jack your car up until the drive wheels are off the ground, have someone gun the engine then tell me how you will stop the tires …
"Waa, waa? " This is a simple speculative, engineering question, so I'm not sure where the critics are coming from.
there is no such thing as a simple engineering question
You may have a reason that the revolution can't be stopped or sloweed, but I'd like to know what it is. My thought is to do this very gradually, then reinstate it after the orbit has been adjusted. It seems to me, and my knowledge of orbital mechanics is very limited, that all we're talking about is increasing or reducing the speed at which Mars travels through space. Faster, the size of the orbit increases, slower, it decreases.
The reasons it can't be slowed are numerous but the main problem is that the surface is rotating at 24,000 miles per day(1000 miles per hour - roughly) at the equator; The tips of mountains are rotating at a different speed that the surface; the Earth is not round but roughly an oblate spheroid so even at the equator parts are rotating at different speeds; this holds true to the center of the earth which is a ball of molten liquid nickle/iron that has its own particular problems including the different currents. This is just the 'land'; the water has a completely different momentum to the land; then you have to take into account the air which has a completely different momentum to either earth and water and has the added problem of it varying viscosity, the mountains, the deserts, …
...so, let's move it. NASA estimates it will cost One Trillion dollars over ten years to reach Mars. Just think of what we could save!
(snip)
How to go about it? That's where you come in. It seems to me we need to stop the rotation first, in order to apply directional force to change the orbit. I'm thinking many large rocket engines arranged along the equator (Fusion powered, of course). Once the rotation is stopped, swivel the same rocket engines to apply force in the appropriate direction until an orbit similar to Earth's is achieved. Your thoughts?
Sorry - you can't stop the rotation nor can you stop the revolution; what you do is take them into account (like using English ((why is it called 'English')) in pool). Well, this is actually as far as I want to go - most any force applied to alter the orbit of Mars will tear it apart.
The teleportation idea is better but only a blind optimist would predict availability in 10 years - it took 25 years for the first report of using silicon as a storage medium to getting USB thumb drives.
