Arguing with a crank - useless.
Promise?
I'm done trying to explain this to trolls. See ya.
Promise?
I'm done trying to explain this to trolls. See ya.
I've already given explicit examples of where some of your claims have been demonstrably false. This illustrates you are not infallable and thus someone cannot simply take your word for things. This, coupled with the fact you have nothing but your opinion and assertions, means it is not only my conclusion that you've failed to do anything even remotely scientific but it is the only rational conclusion. Until you provide evidence there's no reason to believe you. Why should I or anyone else believe you about something outside of the current knowledge of science when you have gotten things science does know about wrong? Clearly whatever your information source is it isn't always right so why should anyone think you're right now? If you cannot provide evidence the rational conclusion is not to believe you.You dispute my aether medium ideas with opinionated rubbish.
Flawed logic, something I've already explained to you. Whether or not I can provide an answer is immaterial to how valid your 'answer' is. To repeat my example suppose I ask you and Cheezle to guess the number between 1 and 1 million I'm thinking of. You both guess and write down your guesses on bits of paper. We look at Cheezle's guess and he got it wrong. Is your guess now more likely to be valid? Would it be reasonable for us all to assume you're right? Of course not, whether or not someone else can provide a correct answer has no bearing on the validity of your attempt at an answer.How do you explain this? The way I explain it is that the aether is made of EM waves that obey $$c=\lambda f$$.
Unfortunately you have shown that you do not know what 'rational' means, since you have repeatedly made logical fallacies, even after you've had the fallacy explained to you. Someone who asserts 'god told me' is not providing a rational discussion, they are only providing 'opinionated rubbish' as they are not providing evidence for their claims. If I said god told me the aether doesn't exist would you believe me? I doubt it. Look at it from my perspective. There's countless people claiming god speaks to them. Some claim to hear an audible voice and see angels or demons in the street. You think a god exists so you have to entertain the possibility that if it is speaking to you it could be speaking to someone else too. But some of the people who say a god speaks to them will be crazy, they don't all give the same descriptions. So in amongst the many people saying god speaks to them there are crazy people, people who firmly know (or so they think) a god is speaking to them. They might make claims about the universe, about how the devil is at the centre of the Earth or the Earth is a flat disk or how gravity is invisible elves pushing things around. How am I supposed to distinguish your claims from theirs? How can I tell you're the sane one who really hears god and not some bat shit crazy nut job? If a god is speaking to you how come you keep making mistakes in your assertions about how the universe works? Why do you keep making logical fallacies? Why do you hold contradictory views? If your information comes from god why isn't it perfect? Why don't you know things kids are taught? Given all of that why should I think you're right about an aether given it seems your source is often incorrect and possibly a mental illness on your part? Because you say so? There are people who assert they are Napolean or Jesus Christ, should I believe them? They provide as much evidence as you for your claims.I expect you to avoid a rational discussion about an aether medium.
Correct, this thread is in a subforum of the Fringe section of this forum. You would not be allowed to post this thread in the main maths/physics forum because it is utterly unscientific and you have been completely incapable of providing reasoned argument and evidence for your position. The reason I do not believe your assertions is because you've failed to meet minimal requirements for scientific discourse and scientific methodology.After all, this isn't a science community, this is Troll land.
Hi Prof.Layman,
Can you PM me forbidden formulas that the CIA redacted from your post?
I'd love to have a look at this secret information for myself.
I think that a small region of space-time can be lifted out of or separated from the space-time continuum of the universe.
When this occurs, that small region, and whatever is inside of it, becomes a particle or object in hyperspace (space with c' >> c).
Acceleration field generators have not been discovered yet.
When they are, they can be modeled as a surface area with an acceleration field emitted perpendicular to it (just like a planet, star or black hole has an acceleration field).
If this acceleration field emitting surface is curved propertly, a strong enough acceleration will push the surface (and the generator inside) into hyperspace.
I've read textbooks on alien technology about warp-drive physics. OK I'm kidding (exaggerating). But think about it; there is no benefit to assuming it doesn't exist. There is benefit to assuming that hyperspace does exist. For one, it allows us to think about physics from a different perspective (which can be helpful). Second, we can think up experiments to test for the existence of hyperspace. Third, if we're right, we wouldn't have gotten there from our present course.Mazulu,
What's your evidence for that?
Alien spacecrafts visit the earth.What's your evidence for the existence of hyperspace?
I don't know what that is.Yes, and we're also waiting for the invention of the Fluffy Foonwaffler. It'll be great when that is discovered!How would we model the Fluffy Foonwaffler, Mazulu?
The existence of a UFO culture should have been enough of a nudge for the physics community to think about FTL drives. The energy requirements of the Alcubierre drive are a hint that FTL drives don't work that way; why do you need all that energy anyway? I won't bore you with details because nobody is interested in hearing it. But as a sophisticated thought experiment, it goes like this. You have to build a particular kind of EM field generator that produces an acceleration field strong enough to simulate the inside of a black hole. If done properly, your spaceship (field source generator) generates a closed surface "bubble". Everything on the inside is familiar space-time. Everything on the outside is hyperspace. At the boundary there exists a kind of "handshaking" between two universes. When the physics community overcomes its ontological aversion, and seeks to understand the aether medium, these technologies will emerge.You seem to be an expert on things that haven't been discovered yet.
Centripetal acceleration is $$a=\frac{v^2}{r}$$. The escape velocity is $$v_e = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}}$$. The event horizon is the point at which light cannot escape. So we set $$v_e = c$$ for the event horizon of a black hole. Within the event horizon, you are in hyperspace. For an acceleration field generator that can generate an acceleration "a", the generator must have a radius smaller than r for it to behave like the inside of an event horizon. The equation is: $$r< \frac{c^2}{a}$$.How? Why? What's the proper curvature? What's strong enough? Quantify please.
I think you have the basic idea.; you would need attraction in the direction that you're moving, and repulsion is the back, the direction that you're coming from. But tell me, what is a holographic black hole and how do you create one?I cannot believe I am about to post this but.....
Wouldn't it be far easier to just project a holographic black hole in the direction you want to go. That could get you up to at least the speed of light.., even multiples of the speed of light, since you are accelerating toward the holographic black hole, and it is always moving inertially with your ship, your acceleration toward it would always be relative, to it.., and it would always be moving as fast as you are, relative to everything else....... It gets even better, since you are projecting it from your spaceship, as its gravity accelerates you, the projector keeps it far enough ahead that you don't get sucked in! And the beauty of it is as you accelerate, there are no G-forces to deal with, you just feel like you are falling, into the holographic projection....
If you know a good programmer, you could even test it pretty easily, in a virtual reality simulator, you know a computer game.....
Thanks for the private message! These equations are amazing... I must say, they're way above and beyond anything I've ever seen. If I'm reading them correctly, they clearly indicate how to exceed light speed. I'll have to study these more and get back to you.
I think you have the basic idea.; you would need attraction in the direction that you're moving, and repulsion is the back, the direction that you're coming from. But tell me, what is a holographic black hole and how do you create one?
"Wouldn't it be far easier to just project a holographic black hole in the direction you want to go" . . . how does one accomplish this . . . with a 'projector', I guess . . . .
Jokes are a way to express the truth without personal risk; it gets the idea out there. In your case, I think it's a good guess. A projector is just something that projects visible light. Try projecting gravitational redshift.The whole post was a joke!
It was like saying project a 3D movie, of a black hole, in front of you and let the gravity of the black hole drag you along...
It is not real... It was a joke.
P.S. Things are really bad when you have explain that something like a picture, of a black hole, would not have the gravity of a black hole.
a holographic projector!
It sounds interesting.
Prof Layman,
Can you pass it along to me, too? Thank you.
We would have proof that hyperspace exists if we could hop into a starship, hyper-drive around the solar system, go sight seeing, visit Mars for some rocks, and return home before dinner. What kind of proof are you looking for?On another note, hyperspace cannot be proven to exist almost by definition. The only "proof" we have of hyperspace is having the inability to be able to detect it by the nature of what it is or entails.