Superluminal space travel

mental_avenger · Sep 14, 2005

I’m not going to waste my time in a debate over dictionary definitions. The fact is, you are attempting to use dictionary definitions of terms to create scientific principles. It doesn’t work that way. You won’t make any progress until you start using Einstein instead of Webster as the basis for your ideas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

jatslo · Sep 14, 2005

Jatslo said, "I have been commanded to introduce to SDC, my allegiance, so without further ado, I present to you: CHAOS; supreme force of the universe and anything parallel to it. Would you like to share your wisdom with the SDC Minions, CHAOS?" CHAOS IS INFINITY AND CHAOS IS -INFINITY Jatslo said, "Chaos is located at -Infinity + Infinity, which is equivalent to Space-past, Space-present, and/or Space-future; general space-time for short. What appears to be random is only an illusion, so do not be fooled: Chaos most definitely has an agenda, and whether or not you understand it is relevant to fate and destiny only." larper said, "It is not "greater than the speed of Light in the Medium". it is "greater than the speed of Light in the Medium""" Jatslo said, "WTF? You demonstrate and uncanny inablilty to step out of your textbook hugging box too. What is the "Medium"? The Medium is "liquids"; liquids with varying degrees of resistive properties. What are they? Charged masses of matter -(m) pass through various different liquids with a variety of different resistive properties and the effect is the same regardless. Charged masses of matter -(m) pass through the Mediums at velocities -(v) that are in excess of the visible-speed-of-Light in the Mediums. A Medium is a Conduit, and a Conduit is the means by which something can traverse between points A and B, and enclosure is not required. A vacuum is a Conduit, and so is space-time. Will you concede?" Conduit: The evidence said, "

jatslo · Sep 14, 2005

Mental_Avenger said "I’m not going to waste my time in a debate over dictionary definitions. The fact is, you are attempting to use dictionary definitions of terms to create scientific principles. It doesn’t work that way. You won’t make any progress until you start using Einstein instead of Webster as the basis for your ideas. Jatslo said, "Go ahead and start sticking your neck out. What are you afraid of? I will use every tool that is at my disposal, and I am fully loaded and prepared to do battle the minions of misinformation and lies. Go ahead, I DARE you, or anyone else you care to recruit."

larper · Sep 14, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The evidence said, " Light emitted by a transparent Medium when charged particles pass through it at a speed greater than the speed of Light ( Do you deny this, Mental_Avenger and larper? ), in the Medium. The effect, discovered by Cherenkov in 1934 while he was studying the effects of gamma rays on liquids and explained in 1937 by I. E. Tamm and I. M. Frank, is analogous to the creation of a sonic boom when an object exceeds the speed of sound in a Medium. The Light is emitted only in directions inclined at a certain angle to the direction of the particles' motion dependent upon the particles' momentum. Thus, by simply measuring the angle between the radiation and the path of the particles, the particles' speed may be determined. The effect is used in the Cherenkov counter, a device for detecting fast particles and determining their speeds or distinguishing between particles of different speeds( REF#45648484 )." <hr /></blockquote> Yes, I will deny it. You keep putting a comma into the definition you yourself are providing a link to. The two statements: at a speed greater than the speed of Light, in the Medium. and at a speed greater than the speed of Light in the Medium. are not equivalent. A vacuum is not a medium. It is not a conduit, it is not anything. It is a vacuum. Last word. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

mcbethcg · Sep 14, 2005

I discussed it repeatedly with him some time back. He simply can't understand the distinction.

jatslo · Sep 14, 2005

BS

mental_avenger · Sep 14, 2005

Well, I was considering attempting a rational discussion with him, but his last dictionary-definition-filled post convinces me that is not possible. There are too many people here who are willing to engage in a rational discussion, and there are too many people here willing to learn. I will now return to the real world. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

nacnud · Sep 14, 2005

Well at least he is picking up HTML quickly <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

jatslo · Sep 14, 2005

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE JATSLO

larper · Sep 15, 2005

Do Not Taunt Happy Fun Ball <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

jatslo · Sep 15, 2005

Mental_Avenger said, "I’m not going to waste my time in a debate over dictionary definitions. The fact is, you are attempting to use dictionary definitions of terms to create scientific principles. It doesn’t work that way. You won’t make any progress until you start using Einstein instead of Webster as the basis for your ideas." Jatslo said, "We will not make any progress, because you and people like you who are roadblocks that prevent real geniuses like Albert Einstein, and whoever else that has a means to speculate, to flex there imagination. You, Sir, are a SDC minion of misinformation and lies; therefore, you are counterproductive to forward progress, not I. You represent the force that blinds us; therefore, your mission objective is one of “Evil Agenda”, and I call on “Righteousness” to smite your pestilence behavior." MCBETHCG LARPER MENTAL_AVENGER NACNUD IGNORANCE PESTILENCE ARROGANCE: RETALIATE THE LINE: MATTER THAT IS FASTER THAN "C" OR NOT JATSLO RIGHTEOUSNESS: RETALIATE Jatslo said, " The line has been drawn that separates "Good versus Evil" and "Right versus Wrong"; like pieces in a puzzle, these minions proprogate these domains. The epic battle is sure to come, for their can only be one, in which that one is either right or wrong. The saga continues…" THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND: CHOOSE

jcdenton · Sep 15, 2005

Jatslo, in all honesty I haven't been able to bring myself to read a single post you've made in this thread, they're that incomprehensible. You also probably think you're pretty clever in mixing font styles and colours but it's really quite childish. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jatslo · Sep 15, 2005

jcdenton said, "Jatslo, in all honesty I haven't been able to bring myself to read a single post you've made in this thread, they're that incomprehensible. You also probably think you're pretty clever in mixing font styles and "colors but it's really quite childish. Jatslo said, "Bring it on jcdenton, Jatslo is fully loaded and ready to do battle on multiple fronts, and I did not come alone. My army is mounting against the SDC minions of misrepresentation, falsification, and lies. You better prepare, we are organizing, and we are here." THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND: CHOOSE

cybersix · Sep 15, 2005

I don't get it. Is this a spam thread? I thought those were for Free Space.

jatslo · Sep 15, 2005

Cybersix said and asked, "I don't get it. Is this a spam thread? I thought those were for Free Space. Jatslo said and asked, "No, this is not a SPAM thread, are you insulating that it is? I presented evidence that is solid, with respect to charged masses of matter -(m) that exceed velocities -(v) that are greater that the visible-speed-of-light -(c), which is relevant to this thread's topic, whereas, your response is not. What position are you taking? Is it plausible? If not, then what is your argument, so that I may counter? If you think it is possible, then will you help bring forth evidence?" THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND: CHOOSE

ordinary_guy · Sep 15, 2005

Oy. Jatslo, I understand you're sticking up for what you believe, but you're hurting my eyes. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Jatslo is fully loaded and ready to do battle on multiple fronts<hr /></blockquote> ...But you're doing battle in multiple fonts. Naming your references is only a small part of presenting a solid case. Once you've done your homework, you've got to restate your argument in a form that rest of us can read and follow without having to make leaps of logic. Simply chaining together statements (and their sources) doesn't do much to clear up whatever you're getting at. Minor tip: You might reconsider referring to yourself in the third person. Between that and the HTML assaults, these recent posts are reading like a genetic cross of Bob Dole and "Stitch" (from "Lilo and Stitch"). You might be the smartest guy on the planet, but unless you communicate in a dialect the rest of understand, all your potential insight will be lost. Just a thought, Jatslo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

mrmux · Sep 15, 2005

Agreed. If you cannot actually put a point across clearly (even legibly) then it doesn't matter how wonderful it is. Big fonts mad colours endless strings of verbatim/ talking normally and having a conversation... choose!

jatslo · Sep 15, 2005

JATSLO CHOSE ALREADY

jatslo · Sep 15, 2005

Jatslo said, "Thank you for the feedback, but I have considered my options and I have chose to include “Ethics”, “Morales”, and “Values” along with “Logic”, because there is unethical behavior within this SDC community that must be brought out into the open. There is a dark side that is counterproductive to mission objectives and goals, and I intend to root it out, and expose it for what it truly is: It is “EVIL”. As a result I have entered allegiances with CHAOS."

mrmux · Sep 15, 2005

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />I tried.

jatslo · Sep 15, 2005

MrMux said, "I tried. Jatslo said, "Plausibility is simply the point that I am trying to make. Thank you for trying. Now I will give you some advise: The majority will guarantee you nothing, but your smart, and I am sure you already know this to be a fact."

jatslo · Sep 16, 2005

Saiph said, "Second, if that galaxy was receding at >C, we wouldn't even see radio waves from it, far to red shifted for that. Now, it may be very highly relativistic (close to C) but not greater than. Jatslo said, "" Black Hole Lurks in Invisible Galaxy: The evidence said, "In a strange reversal, astronomers have detected a massive black hole but can find no traces of the surrounding galaxy that should be feeding it ( REF#15949848949 )." Jatslo said, "Well now, I was expecting a reversal or expansion in the masses of matter that surround this invisible galaxy, but I am a little bit surprised that the visible-speed-of-light -(c) threshold did not hypothecate. -(c) is so controversial, that even the hardened professionals will not speculate. I am extremely confident that this invisible galaxy is in fact moving very, very fast indeed." The evidence said, "At the center of most large galaxies, our own Milky Way included, are extremely dense black holes that have masses hundreds of millions times that of the Sun ( REF#15949848949 )." Jatslo said, "In terms of statistical probabilities, it is likely that all galaxies have black holes, visible stars, and masses of matter -(m) that surround them, and there is not reason that I can think of that would cause the most hardened scientists to speculate otherwise. I major breakthrough is coming." The evidence said, "Called quasars, these massive black holes are the most radiant obj

jatslo · Sep 16, 2005

Black Hole in Search of a Home: Astronomers discover bright quasar without massive host galaxy The evidence said, "An international team of astronomers [1] used two of the most powerful astronomical facilities available, the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) at Cerro Paranal and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), to conduct a detailed study of 20 low redshift quasars. For 19 of them, they found, as expected, that these super massive black holes are surrounded by a host galaxy. But when they studied the bright quasar HE0450-2958, located some 5 billion light-years away, they couldn't find evidence for an encircling galaxy. This, the astronomers suggest, may indicate a rare case of collision between a seemingly normal spiral galaxy and a much more exotic object harbouring a very massive black hole ( REF#71789789789 )." Jatslo said, "They studied 20 red shifted quasars, in which HE0450-2958 is the only quasar that has an invisible galaxy, so they are concluding that a cataclysmic collision occurred, resulting in a quasar stripped of stars. What I understand about the color "Red"; red is on the side of "Infrared Radiation (IR)". Okay, so IR is radiating heating for whatever reason; however, I need to analyze wavelength to determine velocity -(v), and make a correlation to the visible-speed-of-light -(c). The terms "Luminescence" and "Ultra" frequent HE0450-2958, and in terms of -(v), I can only speculate. In terms of light; light is frequency -(v), length -(l), and velocity -(c); however, the significance of frequency and length on velocity eludes me, because I have not made a correlation with HE0450-2958. What is the velocity of HE0450-2958 relative to Earth? +(-) or -(-)? I am thinking sub-luminescence or border line, but why? What is tra

raghara2 · Sep 16, 2005

Shouldn't we send him to probation? Or force him to create readable web site so it will not hurt readability of this thread?

dragon04 · Sep 17, 2005

I'm going to phrase a question that is probably naieve in its assumptions, but I'll ask anyways. As an object with mass approaches c, it would require infinite energy to get that mass TO c. Which directly implies that the mass of that object approaches infinity. If I understand this correctly, the gravity well of a black hole of a million Solar masses for example, cannot suck in any matter outside a radius where the effects of gravity cannot overcome the angular velocity of any body in motion. Travelling at c is distinctly diferent than that. Whether it be 1 gram of mass or 1 kilogram of mass, that mass becomes infinite. So if we build a spacecraft that COULD travel at light speed, wouldn't that create a gravity well that NOTHING in the known universe could escape? I would think in that case, we don't wish to get anywhere near c with our spacecraft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

Superluminal space travel

mental_avenger

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

larper

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

nacnud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

larper

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jcdenton

Guest

jatslo

Guest

cybersix

Guest

jatslo

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

mrmux

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mrmux

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

raghara2

Guest

dragon04

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page