Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below AGENT SHAGWELL
New member
so now you boys back your asses up with something wicked and the one
Why I'm Against Space Travel Entirely....
- Thread starter AGENT SHAGWELL
- Start date
Chesty I think we would normalize exactly like you say if our bodies adapted past the syptoms. I think a lot of what the writers had said in those articles was interesting, but how much of it applies is unknown...so we have the geek factor to try and deal with too.
Lack of rotation is also a very good point to contend with. This also gets into the field of how the vestibular apparatus handles changes in the g field since we were all born and our balance apparati zeroed in on 9.8 m/s/s with the planet rotating at just over 1,000 miles per hour.
The thing that is odd to me is how your body's pulling normal g's at one spot would be different in another part of a rotating a.g. field. It would be interesting to see how that is countered.
Damn! Thanks a lot Chesty, Now I've turned into a geek!
At any rate, I'll never be selected to go into space, nor will I ever have 20 M to give to the Russians to let me go there, so it sucks for me. However, I am planning on going on a calibrated descent plane giving me a chance to see what weightlessness feels like...even if it is for only a minute or so.
Who knows, maybe I'll convince the wife to go too and bribe the pilot to take us up there alone...then I'll report back to you guys answers to your questions about space love.
Later
Lack of rotation is also a very good point to contend with. This also gets into the field of how the vestibular apparatus handles changes in the g field since we were all born and our balance apparati zeroed in on 9.8 m/s/s with the planet rotating at just over 1,000 miles per hour.
The thing that is odd to me is how your body's pulling normal g's at one spot would be different in another part of a rotating a.g. field. It would be interesting to see how that is countered.
Damn! Thanks a lot Chesty, Now I've turned into a geek!
At any rate, I'll never be selected to go into space, nor will I ever have 20 M to give to the Russians to let me go there, so it sucks for me. However, I am planning on going on a calibrated descent plane giving me a chance to see what weightlessness feels like...even if it is for only a minute or so.
Who knows, maybe I'll convince the wife to go too and bribe the pilot to take us up there alone...then I'll report back to you guys answers to your questions about space love.
Later
Damn Chesty, you worked at Marshall....
I'll be working at Cape Canaveral next summer.
My specialty is inter-stellar propulsion systems though.
Agent Shagwell: Sorry, but muscle-loss while in Space
is REVERSIBLE.
PROSTAGLANDINS reverse the muscle-loss while in Space.
PGF2A in particular. Steroids have no effect.
To the guy thats working on the Gravity generated by black
holes:
Whats your take on the the fact that the radiation emitted by
a black hole(consisting of different wavelengths of energetic
rayd from the electromagnetic spectrum. Mostly x-rays)
doesn't account to the amount of matter sucked into the black
hole according to E=mc2. It is theorized that this loss of energy
increases the black holes gravimetric field.
Whats your take on this?
Godspeed
I'll be working at Cape Canaveral next summer.
My specialty is inter-stellar propulsion systems though.
Agent Shagwell: Sorry, but muscle-loss while in Space
is REVERSIBLE.
PROSTAGLANDINS reverse the muscle-loss while in Space.
PGF2A in particular. Steroids have no effect.
To the guy thats working on the Gravity generated by black
holes:
Whats your take on the the fact that the radiation emitted by
a black hole(consisting of different wavelengths of energetic
rayd from the electromagnetic spectrum. Mostly x-rays)
doesn't account to the amount of matter sucked into the black
hole according to E=mc2. It is theorized that this loss of energy
increases the black holes gravimetric field.
Whats your take on this?
Godspeed
HeavyDutyGuy
New member
Weightlessness cause muscle and bone loss, but look at it another way. If you high speed express it to Jupiter where the gravity is MUCH higher than earth's (I forget the exact figure but something like 10 times higher) you could train with 135 lbs on the squat and when you returned to earth you could be squatting 1350 lbs.
Hold on a second, I have to dig my pocket protector out of the drawer. hehehe!
Now seriously, it's my opinion that the energy and radiation emittance of a Black Hole's singularity would not reflect a proportional amount of the matter collapsed within. We have to take into consideration that we're talking about an entity so massive that it is capable of creating distortion of space AND time, so perhaps it is a possibility that the energy emissions recorded at one moment are only reflective of what actually occurred at some other point in time. Sort of like a television transmission delay. In this case, there would be no such thing as "real time" intrumentation.
Since according to Relativity Theory a man travelling at 186,282 mph would travel backwards in time in his own life, what sort of effect might we be speculating about if that variable was influenced even greater--such as the ability of a black hole to overcome the energetics of light waves/particles? This raises an entirely new set of questions...such as: if the energy and radioactive emittance are occurring under the auspices of deformation of space and time dimension, are we actually recording something that is interfering with that of the observer? Comparatively, the stars that we see in the sky are the stars as they were when George Washington and even perhaps Jesus were looking at them....they and us are seeing the same stars, but by the time the light reaches us, we are seeing what that star looked like hundreds or thousands of years ago. But it's still the same star. So the experience of time as we know it is influenced by the ability of the laws of nature to provide something we can relate to. This is a little deeper than I wanted to go, but I think you see the enormity of even theory.
As to my speculation about how radiation inequality affects the mass of the singularity, all I can really determine at this point without getting to caught up in QM and Relativity is that if and when such an event horizon were to implode upon itself and thereby explode once it reached some critical mass state...look out...the moment of termination of a black hole is the subsequent release of trapped or amassed energies. It almost baffles the mind to conceive the magnitude of such an explosion. Think about it this way, many entire planets and stars have been gulped down by this thing....this thing probably no larger than an electron...now imagine the heat and energy that little wad would have trapped! We're talking millions of cubic miles of matter exploding out in all directions at blinding speed (speed of light?). This makes me realize that cygnus x-1, although light years away, isn't far enough from us. If the exploding matter didn't vaporize the planet (and solar system) the ionizing radiation would.
The book 2.8 angstroms is a fantastic book that served as multiple references for me in this undertaking. It's definitely worth a look to get a better perspective on how light is affected by gravity. Which gravity, I might add, is probably the least understood of the physical realms of science.
Now seriously, it's my opinion that the energy and radiation emittance of a Black Hole's singularity would not reflect a proportional amount of the matter collapsed within. We have to take into consideration that we're talking about an entity so massive that it is capable of creating distortion of space AND time, so perhaps it is a possibility that the energy emissions recorded at one moment are only reflective of what actually occurred at some other point in time. Sort of like a television transmission delay. In this case, there would be no such thing as "real time" intrumentation.
Since according to Relativity Theory a man travelling at 186,282 mph would travel backwards in time in his own life, what sort of effect might we be speculating about if that variable was influenced even greater--such as the ability of a black hole to overcome the energetics of light waves/particles? This raises an entirely new set of questions...such as: if the energy and radioactive emittance are occurring under the auspices of deformation of space and time dimension, are we actually recording something that is interfering with that of the observer? Comparatively, the stars that we see in the sky are the stars as they were when George Washington and even perhaps Jesus were looking at them....they and us are seeing the same stars, but by the time the light reaches us, we are seeing what that star looked like hundreds or thousands of years ago. But it's still the same star. So the experience of time as we know it is influenced by the ability of the laws of nature to provide something we can relate to. This is a little deeper than I wanted to go, but I think you see the enormity of even theory.
As to my speculation about how radiation inequality affects the mass of the singularity, all I can really determine at this point without getting to caught up in QM and Relativity is that if and when such an event horizon were to implode upon itself and thereby explode once it reached some critical mass state...look out...the moment of termination of a black hole is the subsequent release of trapped or amassed energies. It almost baffles the mind to conceive the magnitude of such an explosion. Think about it this way, many entire planets and stars have been gulped down by this thing....this thing probably no larger than an electron...now imagine the heat and energy that little wad would have trapped! We're talking millions of cubic miles of matter exploding out in all directions at blinding speed (speed of light?). This makes me realize that cygnus x-1, although light years away, isn't far enough from us. If the exploding matter didn't vaporize the planet (and solar system) the ionizing radiation would.
The book 2.8 angstroms is a fantastic book that served as multiple references for me in this undertaking. It's definitely worth a look to get a better perspective on how light is affected by gravity. Which gravity, I might add, is probably the least understood of the physical realms of science.
First, traveling at 186, 282 miles per hour is only 1.7% the speed of light. Your time as referenced by an outside observer would appear to be moving slower by an amount that can be figured with a Lorentz transfomation. For you, your time would appear to be moving normally and if you were observing the outside reference frame its clocks would be moving faster. Hence, it is all relative. You would not be traveling back in time, but instead to some degree you would be traveling forward in time.
Relativity does not preclude time travel into the past it only says that it is rather difficult and technically way beyond us at this point.
As for the observed discrepancies in radiation at black holes, they have a process whereby there is spontaneous pair particle creation. IE photon/virtual photon pair. The exact nature escapes me at this point. But, suffice it to say that the black hole while strange indeed is a very normal creature that obeys the known laws of physics, right down to the second law of thermodynamics.
Propulsion was my first choice and passion and still is, but alas, I wound up in structural analysis. Yeah, I worked at NASA, got to go all over that base. Very nice place, walked on the station mock-ups, checked out all the labs, worked a bit on the AXAF telescope. Worked on an infrared camera as well. Cool shit, more exciting than the current crap I do. But it pays the bills.
Relativity does not preclude time travel into the past it only says that it is rather difficult and technically way beyond us at this point.
As for the observed discrepancies in radiation at black holes, they have a process whereby there is spontaneous pair particle creation. IE photon/virtual photon pair. The exact nature escapes me at this point. But, suffice it to say that the black hole while strange indeed is a very normal creature that obeys the known laws of physics, right down to the second law of thermodynamics.
Propulsion was my first choice and passion and still is, but alas, I wound up in structural analysis. Yeah, I worked at NASA, got to go all over that base. Very nice place, walked on the station mock-ups, checked out all the labs, worked a bit on the AXAF telescope. Worked on an infrared camera as well. Cool shit, more exciting than the current crap I do. But it pays the bills.
I think 99.9% of elitefitness just left us here. LOL
Another observation on black holes:
As you know the gravimetric field of a singularity increases
in repect to the proximity of the singularities event horizon.
So, as we get closer to the black hole, time as we know it gets
dilated to a point were it slows down to a crawl. This
just goes to show the futility of trying to get an accurate
measurement(quantufiable). Time is fluctuating in multiple
sectors(so-to-speak).
Imagine, a singularity that is X distance away(from our point of
reference). How can we accurately measure this distance
if Time is getting faster and faster as you get farther away from
the black hole. Any measurable energy has been "warped"
(by lack of a better word) by the singularities gravimetric field.
Also, there is a current theory that as V=C, time becomes
imaginary.
Take the time-dilation equation from Einstein's special
theory of relativity.
T2= T1(root of(1- v2/c2)
Now, re-arranging the equation:
When V=C, T2=0(time stops)
However, when V>C(Lets make a MASSIVE assumption..LOL)
T2=T1(root of(-integer)
Therefore,
T2=T1(i) where i=complex number(a + bi)
the time becomes imaginary, but with only a
COMPLEX root, no real root as a=o
So, using an ARGAND diagram:
(similiar to a cartesian plane(x,y))Where x-axis
is real and Y complex.
You can see that the COMPLEX ROOT CANNOT BE
smaller than 0,0, but rather has to be a positive
complex number from 0,0 to 0,infinity(i).
.
Just a few musings.
Godspeed
Another observation on black holes:
As you know the gravimetric field of a singularity increases
in repect to the proximity of the singularities event horizon.
So, as we get closer to the black hole, time as we know it gets
dilated to a point were it slows down to a crawl. This
just goes to show the futility of trying to get an accurate
measurement(quantufiable). Time is fluctuating in multiple
sectors(so-to-speak).
Imagine, a singularity that is X distance away(from our point of
reference). How can we accurately measure this distance
if Time is getting faster and faster as you get farther away from
the black hole. Any measurable energy has been "warped"
(by lack of a better word) by the singularities gravimetric field.
Also, there is a current theory that as V=C, time becomes
imaginary.
Take the time-dilation equation from Einstein's special
theory of relativity.
T2= T1(root of(1- v2/c2)
Now, re-arranging the equation:
When V=C, T2=0(time stops)
However, when V>C(Lets make a MASSIVE assumption..LOL)
T2=T1(root of(-integer)
Therefore,
T2=T1(i) where i=complex number(a + bi)
the time becomes imaginary, but with only a
COMPLEX root, no real root as a=o
So, using an ARGAND diagram:
(similiar to a cartesian plane(x,y))Where x-axis
is real and Y complex.
You can see that the COMPLEX ROOT CANNOT BE
smaller than 0,0, but rather has to be a positive
complex number from 0,0 to 0,infinity(i).
.
Just a few musings.
Godspeed
While black holes may have qualities that obey the known laws of physics, remember they are still theoretical, and we likely do not know all the laws of physics as it is (if we did, we wouldn't know it anyway). Besides, the mathematical explanations of the mere existence of black holes is not a law, so we can't honestly base a law on a theory. So in essence we're still flying blind to some degree until all factors have been revealed about them (highly unlikely for quite some time given that we still have much to learn about our own planet).
Black holes always will have mysterious qualities in just about any sense until we've had a chance to explore them further (perhaps in direct manner). We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of black hole phenomenon, if we think we have, then it's my opinion that we're fooling ourselves. If Hawking, et. al. can only surmise many features of it, then that will do for me as well since I would quickly and rightfully defer to their judgement and knowledge. I'm not a Ph.D. and so my education does not reflect the pinnacle of what is currently known about this sort of phenomenon.
There is still much debate over even whether light should be empirically regarded as a particle or a wave, so while we can speculate about how such properties would be explainable from one method to another, it will be exciting when one day we can first hand see whether the theories hold any water. At least our great great grandchildren will know better the answer to the particle/wave debate. Besides, the various theories were developed to explain what other theories were incapable of convincing otherwise. Yet no one single theory can cover all the bases and there really isn't much of an eclectic model that brings them all together (rather, I'm not a follower in that sense). For every theory and method we have their is another that can seemingly counter it effectively, i.e. the Schrodinger equation and his cat-in-box example, Fourier analysis transformations but I don't see the need for it on this mb.
Relativity is as you put it, but again, there is so much more to the theory than is being given credit. Not time travel, but time moving in reverse for the subject I believe was the model in question. I think we're starting to get into a debate via mathematical models of what can only be partially explained as theoretical application.
186,282 miles per sec. was the intention, and I'm pretty sure you knew that was what I meant. I hope you'll forgive the typo. This has been fun, but now it looks like it's boiling down into specifics. It's fun to speculate in a awed and ponderous manner, but not when we have to be careful about typos and things like that. Besides, I'd rather share info with others than compete in one-ups-manship. I'm not sure if that's what's going on or not, but in any case I'll resign the discussion and leave it to you guys.
Have fun!
Black holes always will have mysterious qualities in just about any sense until we've had a chance to explore them further (perhaps in direct manner). We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of black hole phenomenon, if we think we have, then it's my opinion that we're fooling ourselves. If Hawking, et. al. can only surmise many features of it, then that will do for me as well since I would quickly and rightfully defer to their judgement and knowledge. I'm not a Ph.D. and so my education does not reflect the pinnacle of what is currently known about this sort of phenomenon.
There is still much debate over even whether light should be empirically regarded as a particle or a wave, so while we can speculate about how such properties would be explainable from one method to another, it will be exciting when one day we can first hand see whether the theories hold any water. At least our great great grandchildren will know better the answer to the particle/wave debate. Besides, the various theories were developed to explain what other theories were incapable of convincing otherwise. Yet no one single theory can cover all the bases and there really isn't much of an eclectic model that brings them all together (rather, I'm not a follower in that sense). For every theory and method we have their is another that can seemingly counter it effectively, i.e. the Schrodinger equation and his cat-in-box example, Fourier analysis transformations but I don't see the need for it on this mb.
Relativity is as you put it, but again, there is so much more to the theory than is being given credit. Not time travel, but time moving in reverse for the subject I believe was the model in question. I think we're starting to get into a debate via mathematical models of what can only be partially explained as theoretical application.
186,282 miles per sec. was the intention, and I'm pretty sure you knew that was what I meant. I hope you'll forgive the typo. This has been fun, but now it looks like it's boiling down into specifics. It's fun to speculate in a awed and ponderous manner, but not when we have to be careful about typos and things like that. Besides, I'd rather share info with others than compete in one-ups-manship. I'm not sure if that's what's going on or not, but in any case I'll resign the discussion and leave it to you guys.
Have fun!
