Isn't science great?

POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2009 04:27
VIEWED: 11561
PAGE 1 of 1

KHYRON

Thursday, February 8, 2007 10:13 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6343311.stm

Cool clouds turn light to matter

A fleeting pulse of light has been captured and then made to reappear in a different location by US physicists.

The quantum sleight of hand exploits the properties of super-cooled matter known as a Bose-Einstein condensate. The emerging pulse was slightly weaker than the high-speed beam that entered the experimental setup, but was identical in all other respects. The work, published in the journal Nature, could one day lead to advances in computing and optical communication. "Instead of light shining through optical fibres into boxes full of wires and semiconductor chips, intact data, messages, and images will be read directly from the light," said Professor Lene Vestergaard Hau of Harvard University and one of the authors of the paper.

The Harvard team rose to prominence in the late 1990s when they slowed light from its constant 299,792km/s (186,282mps) to a leisurely 61km/h (38mph). They applied the brakes by shining light into a cloud of sodium atoms trapped in a vacuum and cooled to just above absolute zero (-273 Celsius), the theoretical state of zero heat. At this temperature the atoms coalesce to form a Bose-Einstein condensate, an exotic quantum entity first predicted by Albert Einstein and created in the lab in 1995. A second laser tuned the tiny atomic cloud to slow the pulse of light. In 2001, working with a team from the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, the same group brought light to a halt, by slowly turning off the second control laser. Switching the laser back on set the light free. The new experiment builds on this work.

Instead of just one cloud of sodium atoms, the new setup used two, a fraction of a millimetre apart. "The two atom clouds were separated and had never seen each other before," said Professor Hau. A pulse of light was shone on the first cloud, impressing a "cast" of the pulse into a clump of spinning sodium atoms, nudged in the direction of the second condensate. This slowly-moving clump was composed entirely of sodium atoms, effectively turning light into matter.

Once the "messenger" group had merged with the second cloud, a second laser was shone through the condensate to revive the original pulse of light. From a standing start, the reconstructed beam sped back up to the normal speed of light. Analysis showed that it possessed exactly the same shape and wavelength of the original beam, although it was slightly weaker. Writing in an accompanying article in Nature, Professor Michael Fleischhauer of the University of Kaiserslautern in Germany described the experiment as "striking and intriguing." He said that science was entering a period of "unprecedented experimental control" of light and matter. "That could bring very real technological benefits," he wrote. Applications could include optical storage devices and quantum computers, far quicker and more powerful than today's PCs.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

PIRATENEWS

Thursday, February 8, 2007 11:10 PM

This is one of the arguments that proves NASA never walked The Astronots on The Moon and returned them safely to The Earth.

Stardard Kodac film only works in Earth gravity, since its frequency range is visible light only, not UV nor infrared. So any deviation of the speed of light on The Moon would render Kodac film useless. Since The Moon is 1/6th the mass of The Earth, the speed of light might increase slightly, into the ultraviolet spectrum, rendering the film useless. The Moon also has MasCons (Mass Concentrations = fluctuations in gravitational field depending on location over the surface), which change the localized gravity of The Moon, making orbit almost impossible at low altitude. This might also affect the speed of light as seen by Kodac film on The Moon.

Plus the effects on film of X-rays, gamma rays, nuke particles, 300-degrees F and minus-250-degrees F. The Moon surface has higher levels of gamma rays than the surface of the Sun, due to cosmic radiation, and the fact that when radiation hits any object, it splatters the atoms in that objects in a chain reaction, thus increasing the total number of split atoms. That's why radiation shielding has to be so thick, due to the secondary chain reactions.

We only survive on Earth due to the 100-mile-thick atmosphere (equivalent to 4-feet-thick lead sheilding), and the Van Allen Belt force field, which catches most of the radiation and pulls it into the North Pole magnet.

Since charged particles for the VAB is sucked out of the South Pole, this neutralizes the "Ozone Layer" over the South Pole, plus there is no sunlight over the South Pole for 3 months of night, resulting in the so-called "Ozone Hole" over the South Pole during the 3-months of winter night. Without sunlight, ozone-3 ions are not manufactured from oxygen-2 molecules.

The Moon does not have a liquid core, which killed it from having its own Van Allen Belt force field, plus no atmospheric shielding worth mentioning, thus all space radiation hits the surface. That's how NASA takes computer image (not film photographs) maps of gamma rays bouncing off The Moon.

Photographer David Percy goes into great detail on this issue of the variable speed of light with his book Dark Moon, and somewhat in his videos at:
www.aulis.com/albert_einstein.htm
www.aulis.com/apollo-investigation-2003.htm

Quote:

''We don't have time to answer their questions, the truth is in the photographs.''
-NASA spokesman

Serial killer Colonel Buzz Aldrin calmly discussing his historic "moon" walk
www.moonmovie.com
www.conspiracyworld.com/index0035.htm

Music Video: We Never Went to the Moon
Winner Best Music Video in Hollywood
Winner Best Filmed Music in Hollywood
directed by Pirate News TV
www.myspace.com/ufoetry
www.piratenews.org/hollywood.html

No rocket exhaust on the Apollo moonset

"And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. This is the great dragon of chapter 12, Satan or Azazel. He has a number of names, but in each case, he is the king of all the demons, Lucifer, who became Satan."
-Revelation 9:11, Christian Bible (KJV with Forerunner Commentary)

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

CITIZEN

Thursday, February 8, 2007 11:24 PM

An utter lack of understanding of science as proof of theories about the Moon, I've heard everything.

Aren't people who have bugger all comprehension of science grand?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, February 8, 2007 11:48 PM

PirateNews,

That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard.

Never mind that visible light is NOT shifted into the UV range due to differing gravity on the moon. Let's PRETEND that it's true! Let's PRETEND that visible light IS, by means of Pirate Magic, shifted into the UV range (and therefore becomes invisible.)

That means that NON VISIBLE LIGHT is ALSO shifted... Into the VISIBLE LIGHT SPECTRUM.

So even in Pirate Magic world, film works on the moon.

Thank you, come again.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

PIRATENEWS

Friday, February 9, 2007 12:17 AM

So Einstein (the homosexual plagerist) was wrong, and the science experiments that created this thread are wrong? And what did you say your PhD is based on?

Quote:

"Regarding the Apollo mission, I can't say 100% for sure whether these men walked on the Moon. It's possible that NASA cut corners just to be the first to allegedly go to the Moon. NASA could have covered it up. If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment."
—Dr. Brian O'Leary, Ph.D., standby astronaut on Apollo program, FOX TV, "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484&q=conspir
acy

"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count."
—Robert A. Heinlein

Note that Brian Welch, the NASA spokesman in this Fox TV show, asked NASA to answer these detailed questions, and NASA planned a new book on this subject, but then Welch died at age 43, and NASA then welched on its book deal...

Light is nothing more that electrons expelled from an atomic nucleus by a single pulse repulsive force, like a bullet fired from a gun. The electron (or quark or whatever subatomic particle) is called a photon when travelling at the speed of light, which is variable, as proven by math equations and experiments, and the speed can be measured.

The "speed of quark" is faster than photons/electrons' "speed of light", becuase the quarks have less mass, and thus accellerate faster than heavy electrons, reaching a higher speed. It would be very "easy" to travel at many times the "speed of light", by simply firing a continuous stream of electrons, so that the accelleration continues as long as required.

The only limit to speed is the atmosphere in space, as the aerodynamics of the spacecraft reaches max temperature of its hull before it melts, just like supersonic aircraft in Earth atmosphere, which have thermometers to warn the pilot before the aircraft melts. Timewarps, warpspeed and wormholes are BS. It's just plain ordinary "drag racin": horsepower + fuel + weight/mass + air resistance + time = max speed.

Photons are still electrons, which is why light bends around stars, black holes and galaxies, which is measurable, and around planets, which is much harder to measure. If the mass of the launch source is too high, the photon/electron cannot reach escape velocity, such as when a black hole has an event horizon, and no visible light can escape.

This is exactly what happens on the Moon, where gravity changes the speed of light, which is a higher speed than speed of light on Earth. So Kodac needs to make film ISO/ASA adjusted for the faster "Lunar Speed of Light", as well able to tolerate -250-degrees F to +450-degrees F, which also changes the speed of light.

Don't get your science education from Hollywood, or you'll always be a frakkin moron.

"You can't stop the signal! Serenity is just a movie, you know?"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

KHYRON

Friday, February 9, 2007 12:28 AM

PN, no pictures this time? If you're going to hijack my thread with all this bullshit, next time you might have the courtesy to post some funny pictures so that your post isn't a complete waste of space.

And why is it that you didn't respond to rue's thread about databases and vaccinations? Isn't that the stuff you usually enjoy more? I was waiting for something along the lines of "Antisemetic Jew communist fascist librarians have got all of you in their databases already and will take over the world with mandatory flu vaccinations!".

RIP thread.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 12:28 AM

Electrons don't come from the nucleus. Light doesn't come from the nucleus. Light comes from electrons going from one eneregy level in the surrounding electron cloud to another level.

Quarks never exceed the spped of light. Electrons are not photons. You do not speed up eelctrons by emitting more of them (a 'continuous stream').

The atmosphere of space and spacecraft? Pardon, but what does this have to do with photons?

Again, photons are not electrons.

Gravity on the moon makes the speed of light faster than on earth so that film speed needs to be adjusted? Oh dear, I think not.

CAUSAL

Friday, February 9, 2007 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Isn't Science Great?

Yes, it explains everything and provides hope for a bright shiny utopia.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

KHYRON

Friday, February 9, 2007 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yes, it explains everything and provides hope for a bright shiny utopia.

Exactly!

Oh wait, you were being sarcastic...

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

CAUSAL

Friday, February 9, 2007 12:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yes, it explains everything and provides hope for a bright shiny utopia.
Exactly!

Oh wait, you were being sarcastic...

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CITIZEN

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:01 AM

PirateJew:
Photons are Electrons, that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

A a quark is not a particle.
B an Electron is not a Photon.
C a Photon has zero rest mass.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yes, it explains everything and provides hope for a bright shiny utopia.

I believe explaining everything is religions sole purvew. Though it's has so far fantastically failed to provide the Utopia, no wait, that comes when you die, so no need to bother improving the world...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CAUSAL

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I believe explaining everything is religions sole purvew. Though it's has so far fantastically failed to provide the Utopia, no wait, that comes when you die, so no need to bother improving the world...

Causal: snark, snark, snark
Citizen: snark, snark, snark
Causal: roflmmfao
Citizen: snicker

WRT the extremes of science and religion:
I just know that the truth is somewhere in there, probably close to the mean between the extremes...

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

ANTHONYT

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:19 AM

Wow Piratenews,

Your own science education is so shockingly appalling that I'm surprised you have the audacity to ask me for my PHD. I don't claim to be an expert. I am simply going by what YOU are saying.

In Pirate Magic World, all frequencies of light are UPSHIFTED because of Pirate Magic Gravity Effects on the moon.

If VISIBLE LIGHT is UPSHIFTED to a HIGHER THAN VISIBLE range (UV), then LOWER THAN VISIBLE LIGHT is also UPSHIFTED to VISIBLE RANGE.

This is your Pirate Magic Science, not mine. Don't blame me if it doesn't make sense to you, or if it defeats your own Magical argument.

So anyway, I think that I have now demonstrated how in Pirate Magic World, where the gravity of the Moon Magically upshifts the frequency of light, there is still visible spectrum light that can appear on film.

Remember Piratenews, this is your OWN argument and your OWN magical Science. You've defeated yourself. I'm just turning your head so that you can see yourself in the mirror.

I'm sorry if the image is laughable.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

PIRATENEWS

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:32 AM

I stand sort of corrected. My finger cells typed quark, but my memory cells said neutrino, which is composed of quarks.

Atom = nucleus (proton + neutron) + electron shells/cloud

Electron + proton = neutron + electron-neutrino

Quote:

Neutrinos are an important product of supernovae. In such events, the pressure at the core becomes so high (1014 g/cm³) that the degeneracy of electrons is not enough to prevent protons and electrons from combining to form a neutron and an electron neutrino. Most of the energy produced in supernovas is radiated away in the form of an immense burst of neutrinos. The first experimental evidence of this phenomenon came in the year 1987, when neutrinos coming from the supernova 1987a were detected. It is thought that neutrinos would also be produced from other events such as the collision of neutron stars.

The neutrino burst is expected to reach Earth before any electromagnetic waves, including visible light, gamma rays or radio waves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

Do neutrinos fly faster than visible light (photons/electrons), or do they just get a head start? Chicken or egg? If neutrino mass is smaller than photons/electrons, then they have to fly faster than "light". If quarks are smaller than neutrinos or photons/electrons, they have to fly faster than "light". Do the math.

Quote:

Newton's second law of motion can be formally stated as follows:

Fnet = m * a

The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.

As learned in the "The Rocket Simulation" Lab, the acceleration of an object depends directly upon the net force acting upon the object, and inversely upon the mass of the object. As the force of propulsion acting upon the rocket-chair increased, the acceleration of the rocket-chair increased. As the mass of the rocket-chair increased, the acceleration of the rocket-chair decreased.

www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/newtlaws/u2l3a.html

Protons and neutrons are heavier than electrons, making them slower to accellerate, so they travel at lower speeds in space, but they still exceed 6-million mph when hitting Earth's Van Allen force field.
http://spaceweather.com
http://marian.creighton.edu/~besser/javascr/speed.html

Quarks compose electrons/photons/neutrons, thus they are smaller and lighter and faster than photons/electrons/neutrons.

Quote:

In particle physics, quarks are one of the two basic constituents of matter (the other are the leptons). Quarks are the only fundamental particles that interact through all four of the fundamental forces. Quarks come in six flavors, and their names (up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top) were also chosen arbitrarily based on the need to name them something that could be easily remembered and used. Isolated quarks are never found naturally; they are almost always found in groups of two (mesons) or groups of three (baryons) called hadrons. The composite particles made of quarks and antiquarks are the hadrons. These include the mesons which get their quantum numbers from a quark and an antiquark, and the baryons, which get theirs from three quarks. Astronomical observations of helium abundance give consistent results. Results of direct searches for a fourth generation give limits on the mass of the lightest possible fourth generation quark. The most stringent limit comes from analysis of results from the Tevatron collider at Fermilab, and shows that the mass of a fourth-generation quark must be greater than 190 GeV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

Albert Einstein reasoned that energy is equivalent to mass, as famously expressed in the formula E=mc² (1 kg = 90 petajoules). It is thus common in particle physics, where mass and energy are often interchanged, to use eV/c² or even simply eV as a unit of mass. For example, an electron and a positron, each with a mass of 0.511 MeV/c², can annihila

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

ANTHONYT

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:44 AM

Piratenews,

What does any of that have to do with your rediculous 'invisible moon' theory?

You know, the theory that visible light is upshifted into an invisible range and hence will not show up on film?

But no, I see you'd rather talk about genocide and Richard Nixon and the supposed sexual orientation of scientists. Cause they're so related.

Oh, and Piratenews, tell me something...

Quote:
In Apollo videos, note the lack of mandatory 2.5-second time delay for telephone/radio signals (photons/electrons) to travel 500,000 miles at the speed of light from Earth to Moon to Earth...

How can you 'witness' a time delay, Or a lack of one, in recorded video footage? I'm interested in the technique you use to become aware of recorded time delay.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

PIRATENEWS

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Piratenews,

What does any of that have to do with your rediculous 'invisible moon' theory?

You know, the theory that visible light is upshifted into an invisible range and hence will not show up on film?

But no, I see you'd rather talk about genocide and Richard Nixon and the supposed sexual orientation of scientists. Cause they're so related.

Oh, and Piratenews, tell me something...

Quote:
In Apollo videos, note the lack of mandatory 2.5-second time delay for telephone/radio signals (photons/electrons) to travel 500,000 miles at the speed of light from Earth to Moon to Earth...

How can you 'witness' a time delay, Or a lack of one, in recorded video footage? I'm interested in the technique you use to become aware of recorded time delay.

Dude, your lack of brain is showing. And your lack of hearing. And inability to count to the number 2. Let me guess, you flunked out of high school and you flip burgers for crack money?

Quote:

If NASA can't make a TV screen work, how can it land men on The Moon who take perfect photos with ordinary Kodac film?
http://space.about.com/library/video/blvidapollo11_onbclip17.htm
www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/apollo11.html

Have you ever taken a photo? Have you ever tried different ASA film speeds? Have you every adjusted the exposure on digital cameras or video recorders? Do you know the color temperatures of light, between shadow and sunlight, and how that radically changes the color on a videotape? Do you comprehend the difference between mass and weight, how one changes on the Moon but the other does not? Have you ever accellerated your car at full throttle? Inquring minds want to know. Not.

"You can't stop the signal! But Big Brother killed me anyway."
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

ANTHONYT

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:59 AM

Piratenews,

That was... an incredible lack of addressing the problems with your earlier statements.

Can you try again? This isn't conspiracy theory fluff at last. This is you screwing up on plain verifiable science.

Does it worry you to finally have to admit that you're wrong?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Friday, February 9, 2007 2:11 AM

Piratenews,

In case your attention deficit disorder is straying your mind to devil worshipping sexual deviants, I will outline again your Kodak on the Moon Argument:

1) The speed of light is changed on the moon.

2) This causes visible spectrum light to upshift into non-visible spectrum UV.

Which means that

3) Nothing should appear on film.

That was your argument. Do you want to revise it now?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

PIRATENEWS

Friday, February 9, 2007 2:48 AM

Go buy your crack from the CIA and your local sheriff. Maybe then your damaged brain will speed up and start to think.

The point proven by this thread was that light speed is variable, and can be slowed down or STOPPED by lowering the temp, which means it can also be speeded up by raising the temp (much harder to do). How fast can light travel at 1-million degrees F? 10-million deg F? 100-million deg F?

Apolloscam is affected by these facts of physics, since physics proves it's impossible for NASA to land men on The Moon and return them safely to Earth to have their perfect Kodac film developed with pre-Walmart technology.

Einstein was a non-Semitic Jewish deadbeat dad, a liar and plagerist who liked it up the tailpipe at Jewish Bohemian Grove, whose thefts helped genocide 200,000 Christians in Japan. That's history.

Dr Tesla was infinitely more intelligent than Einstein, infinitely better for the human race, and an infinitely superior human being, thus the NWO crushed him like a bug, virtually erasing his name from history and destroying his nation of Yugoslavia, while promoting Einstein to a god at Bohemian Grove homosexual nudist compound. Heinz Kissenger probably loved Einie's heiny at the CREAMation of Care ritual human sacrifice to Molech/Lucifer/Satan. Or vice versa.

On the subject of crack, our local county commission now has a convicted crack dealer on its payrole as commissioner, reported on TV this week (surprise!). No elections required nor allowed by the secret ballot. His mommy was fired by the Tennessee Supreme Court, along with all other commissioners and the sheriff due to term limits, thus nullifying the bogus election in November, where real candidates were banned from the ballot. So his mommy appointed him to the county commission, while the other fired commissioners appointed thier spouses to unelected commissioners. The ex-sheriff stays on the sheriff payrole, to qualify for his $80,000/year pension in May, to go with his 6 criminal convictions for perjury while sheriff, and stealing cars from the mall with his convicted copkilling towtrucking chopshopper partner, and renting his airport from a convicted dope dealer. All that work, just so organized crime can steal billions of taxdollars from the Top Secret CAFR "pension" funds and no-bid contracts.
www.cafrman.com

The point being, Gangsta Govt is populated by gangsters with virtual immunity from arrest for their felonies. Why would anyone in their right mind trust anything They do or say, or trust Them with their bank account?

But hey, that's not important, is it? Prostitute Anna Nicole Smith's latest drug-addicted Jewish suicide/murder is more important to humanity, isn't it? It is if you believe the pathological liars in the Jewish Media Mafia.

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

ANTHONYT

Friday, February 9, 2007 2:53 AM

Piratenews,

Try to concentrate on the film thing.

Your argument about the film not working.

It's completely illogical and you completely fail to address it.

Please return to THAT topic.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

PIRATENEWS

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:07 AM

Since you're a genius on crack, explain to the peanut gallery how this UFO works, as exhibited by school geeks in science fairs worldwide:

Hint: It has zero moving parts...

"And don't ride on anything with a Capissen 38 engine, they fall right out of the sky."
-Kaywinnet Lee Frye

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:16 AM

I think PN had a 'Kodak' moment when he typed that one post.

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:20 AM

PN

186,000 mi/sec it's not just a good idea, it's the law

I think everyone knows that that speed of light is in a vacuum, and that light's speed can be changed by passing it through different media. And that's how they slowed/ stopped light the way it did - they just had to find the right media.

PIRATENEWS

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
PN

186,000 mi/sec it's not just a good idea, it's the law

I think everyone knows that that speed of light is in a vacuum, and that light's speed can be changed by passing it through different media. And that's how they slowed/ stopped light the way it did - they just had to find the right media.

I never obey man's puny speed limits, why should God? Besides, there's no such thing as a vacuum.

Quote:

This design takes advantage of the fact that particles produced in the interaction of the incoming neutrino with an atomic nucleus typically travel faster than the speed of light in the detector medium (though of course slower than the speed of light in a vacuum).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_astronomy

The neutrino burst is expected to reach Earth before any electromagnetic waves, including visible light, gamma rays or radio waves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

I did enjoy driving 130mph in bumper to bumper formation with commuter traffic for 3 hours nonstop on the German Autobahn. History Channel's camera crew drove 212mph at night in the rain on the Autobahn (Modern Marvels), 100% legal, where the death rate is far lower than USA.
www.americanautobahn.com

I wonder why Gangsta Govt sues million$ of speeding ticket$, when its own official reports prove that speeding is SIX TIMES SAFER than driving the posted speed limit?

Speed limits are for sissies, and for those who flunked math. Many things in life appear to be counterintuitive, which explains why common sense is so uncommon.

"You can't stop the signal! Which we broadcast at faster than the speed of light."
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:55 AM

Yeah, I put in that thing about speed limits on purpose just to dangle some bait ... I hate to say it, but you've become predictable.

As to your first quote, the part you didn't underline goes like this: ... in the detector medium (though of course slower than the speed of light in a vacuum).

The second reference begins with this: "Neutrinos are elementary particles. Travelling close to the speed of light ..." The part you chose to extract was that the neutrinos would be creating that light on their way through matter - which is why they get to the earth first. It has nothing to do with neutrinos being faster, it has to do with them having a head-start.

CAUSAL

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Dude, your lack of brain is showing. And your lack of hearing. And inability to count to the number 2. Let me guess, you flunked out of high school and you flip burgers for crack money?

Yes, everyone, if you lack coherent and justifiable arguments, ad hominem attacks work just as well!

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

YINYANG

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:28 AM

::whoosh::

That's the sound of something going over my head.

So, somebody want to explain this real slow, in terms I can understand? Please?

PIRATENEWS

Friday, February 9, 2007 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
::whoosh::

That's the sound of something going over my head.

So, somebody want to explain this real slow, in terms I can understand? Please?

Apparently the point of this thread is that life is more complicated that it at first appears, and science is continually rediscovering itself. I think.

Einstein stole E=MC2 from guys in the 1870s, so the "speed limit of light" thing is 130 years out of date. Same with Einie's "infinite mass at light speed" crap, as anyone knows from standing in sunlight. Loony Einstein is worshipped as a god, yet his equations have never been verified by science.

Sir Newton had it right to begin with, even if he never did have sex his entire life. I guess that's what happens when you invent the calculus.

It's been said that humankind would be 2-million years more advanced, except psychopaths in Gangsta Govt keep slaughtering everyone and stealing their inventions, money, minds and souls.

Quote:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self evident.
Marrying means to halve one's rights and double one's duties,
to grasp blindfold into a sack
hoping to find out an eel out of an assembly of snakes.
—Dr Arthur Schopenhauer PhD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

ANTHONYT

Friday, February 9, 2007 6:30 AM

Piratenews,

I'm still waiting for you to admit that your lightspeed/frequency shift/kodak argument is craptastically wrong.

You know, the one where all visible light that reaches the moon is upshifted into becoming invisible light.

The one where there's no visible light on the moon?

Oh come on, don't just fail to address it. Don't talk about einstein and don't talk about science projects and don't talk about jews or nazis or Satan. Don't tell me about the vacuum of space and don't talk about how you don't believe in speed limits.

Talk about how there's no visible light spectra on the moon, man! Oh, and keep telling me how stupid I am. It means so much coming from you.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KHYRON

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Apparently the point of this thread is that life is more complicated that it at first appears, and science is continually rediscovering itself. I think.

Something like that. The point was for us to talk about cool recent scientific advances. It certainly wasn't "Hey PN, have a go."

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Friday, February 9, 2007 8:17 AM

Man, this thread is the funniest Hoot-and-Holler I've read in a long time.
I was beggining to miss PN. I dont anymore.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
The point was for us to talk about cool recent scientific advances. It certainly wasn't "Hey PN, have a go."

I think this has been more entertaining Ky, though I do feel for your loss here.

I hated science in school.... Okay, I liked Biolology, but I hated Chemestry and Physics. Political Science to me always seemed more tangable and more significant.

I think it's pretty cool that Science has been able to make the 6 500GB hard drives that I have in my computer now, hosting all of my pirated goodies.

THANKS SCIENCE!!!!!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

AURAPTOR

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:45 PM

Buzz hit the wrong nut case. Or to be more accurate, he shouldn't have stopped at just that one.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ANTHONYT

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:39 PM

PirateNews,

Quick! You still have a chance to regain some credibility.

This is your chance to prove that you really do care about saving the world from the conspirators threatening us all.

Just admit that you were wrong about visible light spectra on the moon.

Because if you continue to insist on something so clearly flawed, even using your own logic...

then there is no reason for us to believe anything you ever say.

So, which is it? Save the World, or Save your Ego?

Moment of truth...

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:35 PM

Quote:
Since you're a genius on crack, explain to the peanut gallery how this UFO works, as exhibited by school geeks in science fairs worldwide:

Hint: It has zero moving parts...

No, but it does have a 9V battery that levitates it because of natural voltage differences in the atmosphere, not unlike a cloth sticking to a charged surface. Electricity can do some bizzarre and wonderful things.

Quote:
Einstein stole E=MC2 from guys in the 1870s, so the "speed limit of light" thing is 130 years out of date. Same with Einie's "infinite mass at light speed" crap, as anyone knows from standing in sunlight. Loony Einstein is worshipped as a god, yet his equations have never been verified by science.

BUZZZED! WRONG! Einstienian relativistic time effects relating to increasing velocity have been confirmed experimentally with atomic clocks with values that match those derived from Einstiens math.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SAHARA

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:38 PM

Lene Hau has already shaken scientists’ beliefs about the nature of
things. Albert Einstein and just about every other physicist insisted
that light travels 186,000 miles a second in free space, and that it
can’t be speeded-up or slowed down. But in 1998, Hau, for the first
time in history, slowed light to 38 miles an hour, about the speed of
rush-hour traffic.

Two years later, she brought light to a complete halt in a cloud of
ultracold atoms. Next, she restarted the stalled light without changing
any of its characteristics, and sent it on its way. . . .

Now Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and of Applied Physics, Hau has
done it again. She and her team made a light pulse disappear from one
cold cloud then retrieved it from another cloud nearby. In the process,
light was converted into matter then back into light. For the first
time in history, this gives science a way to control light with matter
and vice versa. — Harvard Press release/Staff photo Justin Ide/Harvard News Office

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/multimedia/flash/vid_hau2007.swf

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sahara:
Lene Hau has already shaken scientists’ beliefs about the nature of
things. Albert Einstein and just about every other physicist insisted
that light travels 186,000 miles a second in free space, and that it
can’t be speeded-up or slowed down. But in 1998, Hau, for the first
time in history, slowed light to 38 miles an hour, about the speed of
rush-hour traffic.

That's not actually true. 'c' cannot be exceeded or reduced, but c is the cosmological constant, not the speed of light. it just so happens that lights maximum speed is c in a vaccuum because it has a zero rest mass. As your velocity increases your apparent mass and the energy to continue accellerating also increases, if you think about it in a way this makes sense, the faster you want to drive your car the more powerful the engine you need to propel it. If you like 'c' is the engine, and the photon is the smallest car you can buy. Obviously nothing is going to be able to go faster than that car because everything is bigger and being propelled by the same engine.

The point is you litterally cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a vaccuum, or 186,000 miles a second. However Einstien himself said that the speed of light was not constant, it depended on the medium, however the value of 'c' is constant.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SAHARA

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:53 PM

Hey, I just thought it was funny that I read this thread this morning, and the very same day I run across the same topic on a totally unrelated website. What are the odds?
The explaination has been slowed down considerably for your average layman, I'm sure.

Or, maybe it's a conspiracy!!!

I do not deny that c is a constant.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sahara:
I do not deny that c is a constant.

Didn't say you did, but what 'c' actually is is a common misconception. Most people think it's the speed of light and tend to assume that means it's variable

. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SAHARA

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:57 PM

Sweetie please, that does not even rate on the misunderstanding scale.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

KHYRON

Friday, February 9, 2007 8:01 PM

What Citizen said.

Plus:
"...and that it can’t be speeded-up or slowed down. But in 1998, Hau, for the first time in history, slowed light to 38 miles an hour, about the speed of rush-hour traffic."

What sort of reporting is that!? That "but" is a deliberate attempt to make it at first seem as if Einstein was wrong, even though clearly a different medium was used (which was only mentioned later in the article). Cheap tactic to get the reader interested.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

BATTLESTARMINNESOTIA

Friday, February 9, 2007 10:07 PM

Wow

Is this Pirate News guy for real? I'm a relativly new poster here so I've never really asked.

Anyhow, I heard this physicist guy--Susskind I think his name was--talking on NPR and he made the point that all of these goofy relativistic and quantum mechanical things are only described accurately mathematically. Take 4 (or more dimensions). Impossible to imagine or visualize; super easy mathematicaly--just add another axis to the usual x, y, and z.

So unless you have mastered very advanced mathematics, all this stuff is being described using metaphors. And his point was that metaphors can be very useful but they are always--ALWAYS--an inaccurate or incomplete description of what's actually going on.

Now I myself love science but never got super far in the math department, so as well informed as I am, I know that I'll never really "understand" this stuff. That means "debate" on these matters very dicey indeed amongst those of us not armed with the requisite tools to knowledgebly stake out valid arguments and counter-arguments. It's fun to talk about, and the whole "that is so COOL!" is great. But I know I am in no way properly informed in math to really argue much. I have to trust the scientific establishment to adhere to thier core princeples, and 99% of the time I do.

So when I hear such craziness, such a sense of absolute iron clad grasp of the truth in all things scientific, political, social, etc it's just a tip to me that one's belief system is based less on scientific and rational tenets and more on faith and one's one desires and neuroses. Nobody can really be so right about so many bodies of knowledge and still claim infalliabilty at the same time. This much I'm pretty sure of, even if I can't do calculus.

Maybe I'm wrong tho, I'm not perfect and I even if know a lot, I don't know everything.

BSG-38 Minnesotia

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, February 10, 2007 1:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BattlestarMinnesotia:
So when I hear such craziness, such a sense of absolute iron clad grasp of the truth in all things scientific, political, social, etc it's just a tip to me that one's belief system is based less on scientific and rational tenets and more on faith and one's one desires and neuroses.

I feel exactly the same way.

And that "absolute iron clad grasp of the truth" doesn't just come from offbeat conspiracy theorists. Listen carefully, and you'll hear that same dogmatic tune about issues like global warming and vaccines, where "science" has established the truth, and everyone who dissents is a selfish, deluded moron.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

RUE

Saturday, February 10, 2007 2:19 AM

Sigh ...

CTS, most of us follow the SCIENCE, not the CONCLUSION.

At this point the best SCIENCE indicates 1) global warming is real, and 2) it's man-made. Should SCIENCE indicate otherwise at some point in the future, then we will accept that SCIENCE.

On a personal note, get some help. You have an pathetically inflated view of your importance.

SABRI3L

Saturday, February 10, 2007 5:54 AM

Does piratenews ever do anything but spout rhetoric and paranoid theories? I was just wondering if he even really is a fan, or has just found a place to stand on his soapbox, rather than some random street corner.....

Knitter of Cunning Jayne Hats

http://www.myspace.com/gazthegloomy

mal

CHRISISALL

Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:06 AM

*Kodachro-oh-ohme gives us those nice bright colours;
gives us those dreams of summer;
gives us those delusions of a moonlit da-aaaay....*

Just say no Chrisisall

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
On a personal note, get some help. You have an pathetically inflated view of your importance.

This, simply being the opinon of someone so wrapped up in science that anyone who has a differing opinion is simply ignorant of the truth. Hmmmmmmmm.... the same could very easily be said about you Rue... in fact, I already know it has been.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Saturday, February 10, 2007 7:38 PM

"so wrapped up in science"

I thought I was a liberal. When you make up your mind, let me know.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Saturday, February 10, 2007 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sabri3l:
Does piratenews ever do anything but spout rhetoric and paranoid theories? I was just wondering if he even really is a fan, or has just found a place to stand on his soapbox, rather than some random street corner.....

Knitter of Cunning Jayne Hats

http://www.myspace.com/gazthegloomy

No, unfortunately it is just as you suspect.
Shh... here he comes again.

STORYMARK

Saturday, February 10, 2007 8:43 PM

We need a pirate watch. Some sort of alarm to sound when we see the tin-foil sails on the horizon...

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

SASSALICIOUS

Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:48 PM

I think he might be a bit of a fan because he occasionally quotes the show. But I do know that he soapboxes elsewhere on the internets as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

SASSALICIOUS

Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
::whoosh::

That's the sound of something going over my head.

So, somebody want to explain this real slow, in terms I can understand? Please?

Don't worry about it being over your head. My head was starting to hurt everytime PN blathered on and I LOVE physics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 11, 2007 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
Don't worry about it being over your head. My head was starting to hurt everytime PN blathered on and I LOVE physics.

No, PN's posts were making your head hurt BECAUSE you love physics

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BATTLESTARMINNESOTIA

Monday, February 12, 2007 6:40 PM

The thing I think that gets lost about scientific stuff in the regular public is; It's the questions that the scientists get all liquidy about. So it sorta makes then come across as indecisive.

The particular thing about global warming "theory" that makes me crazy, is that the only system we have to observe is the actual biosphere, so it's not possible to "prove" something in climate sciences in that super rock-solid way that everyone seems to demand for "theories" they don't like. So yeah, you do need to make a judgement call on some of these things. But it doesn't make them unscientific. It's simply not possible to "prove" global warming as human caused because there is no way to test alternative hypothesis objectivley in a controlled way. But one cannot simply throw up their hands and say "we cannot ever know for sure!" because most phenomenon fall into the latter category. We'd never figured anything about the universe at all with that attitude. So you have to start going with likelyhoods. Percent possiblity and all that.

It's kinda like the "Without a shadow of a doubt" threshold in criminal cases vs "Preponderance of evidence" in civil trials.

Think for a second about hte fact that most people--even in the suburbs--won't let their kids out to play in the park and be home by dinnertime; like we did when I was a kid. Why not? Parents are scared of their kid's safety. Child molestors lurk in every park and drive-by shooters are waiting on every street, right? Well, of course not. But the thing is there ARE child molestors and shooters, and most parents figure that even given the relativly SMALL chance their kid will cross one, the potential CONSEQUENCE of that possible event make the rational choice to drive their kids everywhere and supervise everything. Most parents would not argue with me on this I think.

Extrapolating this idea to the ENTIRE GLOBE, doesn't it seem a litttle silly to hold scientists to some unattainable standard of proof, given the catastrophic consequnces at stake? Would you wait for rock-solid proof (letters and photographs, say) of a specific child molestor targetting YOUR kid before you'd START supervising them very closely?

The simple fact is that yeah, they ALL may be wrong about global warming. But the consequences of doing nothing--if humans are causing it--socially, economicly, etc is so severe, so damaging, that even if they ARE wrong we still need to do something. Besides, cleaning up pollution, abandoning fossil fuels, all that stuff is ultimately good for us either way anyway.

BSG-38 Minnesotia

KHYRON

Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:18 AM

This is an attempt to sort of bring the thread back to its original purpose, but I won't be surprised if it's futile.

Strictly speaking, this is more technology than science, but who cares. It's all good stuff!

I've got the entire written portion of the article here, but click on the link to see the illustrations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6368089.stm

"A bionic eye implant that could help restore the sight of millions of blind people could be available to patients within two years.

US researchers have been given the go-ahead to implant the prototype device in 50 to 75 patients. The Argus II system uses a spectacle-mounted camera to feed visual information to electrodes in the eye. Patients who tested less-advanced versions of the retinal implant were able to see light, shapes and movement. "What we are trying to do is take real-time images from a camera and convert them into tiny electrical pulses that would jump-start the otherwise blind eye and allow patients to see," said Professor Mark Humayun, from the University of Southern California.

Retinal implants are able to partially restore the vision of people with particular forms of blindness caused by diseases such as macular degeneration or retinitis pigmentosa. About 1.5 million people worldwide have retinitis pigmentosa, and one in 10 people over the age of 55 have age-related macular degeneration. Both diseases cause the retinal cells which process light at the back of the eye to gradually die.

The new devices work by implanting an array of tiny electrodes into the back of the retina. A camera is used to capture pictures, and a processing unit, about the size of a small handheld computer and worn on a belt, converts the visual information into electrical signals. These are then sent back to the glasses and wirelessly on to a receiver just under the surface of the front of the eye, which in turn feeds them to the electrodes at the rear. The whole process happens in real time.

First-generation, low-resolution devices have already been fitted to six patients. "The longest device has been in for five years," said Professor Humayun. "It's amazing, even with 16 pixels, or electrodes, how much our first six subjects have been able to do." Terry Byland, 58, from California was fitted with an implant in 2004 after going blind with retinitis pigmentosa in 1993. "At the beginning, it was like seeing assembled dots - now it's much more than that," he said. "When I am walking along the street I can avoid low-hanging branches - I can see the edges of the branches." Mr Byland is also able to make out other shapes. "I can't recognise faces, but I can see them like a dark shadow," he said.

The new implant has a higher resolution than the earlier devices, with 60 electrodes. It is also a lot smaller, about one square millimetre, which reduces the amount of surgery that needs to be done to implant the device. The technology has now been given the go-ahead by the US Food and Drug Administration to be used in an exploratory patient trial. This will take place at five centres across America over two years, with 50-75 patients aged over 50. If successful, the device could be commercialised soon after, costing around $30,000 (£15,000). Other devices could then be developed with higher resolution or a wider field of view, said Professor Humayun. Future work includes studying the effects the implants have on the brain. "We are actually studying what happens to the visual cortex over time," said Professor Humayun. The research was presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in San Francisco, US. "

6string, don't bother replying to this if all you have to say is: "Science trying to mess with our lives, man, so that blind people can see again so that they can watch commercials for Science's happy pills and then buy them! All hail Mighty Science!".

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:12 AM

I saw that on the News last night, they had a blind woman playing basket ball using the older system.

Impressive, not least because the electrodes produce such a low resolution image I can't imagine seeing anything in it.

Theres no reason with continued development and refinement that they shouldn't be able to reduce the technology further and produce imgages closer to reality.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:55 AM

I love science. I'm going home and having sex with my PS2!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I love science. I'm going home and having sex with my PS2!

An intelligent and thoughtful post as always jack, thanks everso.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:48 PM

Nobody takes me seriously when I'm trying to be serious, so I figure, why frustrate myself. I plan on moving out into a forest in the middle of Montana when I get the loot anyhow so science can run it's course and hopefully it doesn't step on my toes.

Send a carrier pidgeon my way if you guys ever figure out a way to get us off of this rock.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:17 AM

Anyway, I 'do' science for a living so of course I think it's great.

I've met people who don't like science for various reasons.

1) never could get into the math
2) how can anyone be interested in that stuff
3) scientists are weird and nobody want to be weird on purpose
4) it's hard work
5) if science studies everything it might study me and dismantle my ideas about myself (ie it's personally threatening to my identity)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:57 AM

Because I'm a genius and I'm weird and I can do a reasonable amount of math even though it interests me none at all, and I'm not a stranger to hard work, I guess I'd have to go with 5.

I think 5's a pretty damn good reason.

How about reason number 6: Science will be the weapon used to kill us or enslave us all in the end.

I haven't really recieved any arguement about that little point in here, even from the science types, except that it is the people behind science that will do it and that isn't science's fault, but human nature.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:08 AM

I think the human issue you have a problem with started with the use of language.

Now THAT'S some tool!

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:10 AM

I can't argue you there. 99% of the things that humans say should have been left unsaid.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:14 AM

Not just that. By having independent representations for things, we can put those representations together in ways that might not exist in real life. Hence, we can have 'ideas' of things that don't exist. A form of lie.

added: if you want to get biblical, it's the knowledge of good and evil.

Maybe we should be autochthons.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not just that. By having independent representations for things, we can put those representations together in ways that might not exist in real life. Hence, we can have 'ideas' of things that don't exist. A form of lie.

added: if you want to get biblical, it's the knowledge of good and evil.

Maybe we should be autochthons.

Not exactly sure of what you mean here Rue. Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as good and evil?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:32 AM

Just that humanity's basic error was in developing language.

shoulda' stuck with grunts and pointing

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:41 AM

Actually, that's not true.

There have been cultures where people had language, fire, metalworking, agriculture, wheels - but not religion, or heirarchy, or war.

And somehow most of the rest of humanity went down the wrong path when they got those things. It IS possible to have the fruits of technology without the downside. We just need to figure out how.

For example, it's been said that large-scale war wouldn't be possible without agriculture. That agriculture allowed for concentrated excess, which was cornered by a ruling class in a positive-feedback cycle. That the ruling class was then able to direct society to use its excess for war on others. So agriculture was necessary for hierarchies and war.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
shoulda' stuck with grunts and pointing

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr...... Ooooga Grunt....

Quote:
And somehow most of the rest of humanity went down the wrong path when they got those things. It IS possible to have the fruits of technology without the downside. We just need to figure out how.

For example, it's been said that large-scale war wouldn't be possible without agriculture. That agriculture allowed for concentrated excess, which was cornered by a ruling class in a positive-feedback cycle. That the ruling class was then able to direct society to use its excess for war on others. So agriculture was necessary for hierarchies and war.

Now we're getting somewhere. I think the first step is to dethrone the Repuglicrat Alliance. No more Bushites or Clintonheads. We need a new voice in our government here to weed out the corruption and greed. Then we need to keep them honest too because, as we all know, nothing screws up a good thing like power.

Interesting point about the agriculture. I've never heard of that before, but it would seem a perfectly plausable explaination as to the origins of the mess we're in now.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

JASONZZZ

Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BattlestarMinnesotia:
The thing I think that gets lost about scientific stuff in the regular public is; It's the questions that the scientists get all liquidy about. So it sorta makes then come across as indecisive.

The particular thing about global warming "theory" that makes me crazy, is that the only system we have to observe is the actual biosphere, so it's not possible to "prove" something in climate sciences in that super rock-solid way that everyone seems to demand for "theories" they don't like. So yeah, you do need to make a judgement call on some of these things. But it doesn't make them unscientific. It's simply not possible to "prove" global warming as human caused because there is no way to test alternative hypothesis objectivley in a controlled way. But one cannot simply throw up their hands and say "we cannot ever know for sure!" because most phenomenon fall into the latter category. We'd never figured anything about the universe at all with that attitude. So you have to start going with likelyhoods. Percent possiblity and all that.

Actually there are numerous different climate models that a lot of these data are collected and then subsequently extrapolated from. Supposedly then, all of the data spitted out by these climate models then collaborates with the prediction that we see published and used to justify the anthropic global warming battle cry today. The problem with these climate models that I see boils down to two folds:

- there is not enough of an understanding of the complexity and all of the interactions in our climate/atmosphere/ecosystem to have these kinds of climate modeling. We are coming up with new stuff every single day on how the atmosphere behave - basic stuff at that. That's the good thing, oh, that's also the bad thing - because some how people really believe in the climate models that we have today.

- some documented evidence from researchers that the parameters fed into the climate models are very very aggresive and generates the worst case scenarios. So if your funding depends on you making models and then turning around with new data that people are interested in, that's one thing, but if your boss or if the media continually only excerpts the two chapters (maybe out of 14 total) which talks about the worst case scenarios - what's your research really worth then?

- research on alternate theories on warming or to counter warming are receiving lack of interest and worst no funding. how's that for blindly focusing on your own conclusion and not looking for other possible causes?

Quote:
Originally posted by BattlestarMinnesotia:

It's kinda like the "Without a shadow of a doubt" threshold in criminal cases vs "Preponderance of evidence" in civil trials.

Think for a second about hte fact that most people--even in the suburbs--won't let their kids out to play in the park and be home by dinnertime; like we did when I was a kid. Why not? Parents are scared of their kid's safety. Child molestors lurk in every park and drive-by shooters are waiting on every street, right? Well, of course not. But the thing is there ARE child molestors and shooters, and most parents figure that even given the relativly SMALL chance their kid will cross one, the potential CONSEQUENCE of that possible event make the rational choice to drive their kids everywhere and supervise everything. Most parents would not argue with me on this I think.

Extrapolating this idea to the ENTIRE GLOBE, doesn't it seem a litttle silly to hold scientists to some unattainable standard of proof, given the catastrophic consequnces at stake? Would you wait for rock-solid proof (letters and photographs, say) of a specific child molestor targetting YOUR kid before you'd START supervising them very closely?

The simple fact is that yeah, they ALL may be wrong about global warming. But the consequences of doing nothing--if humans are causing it--socially, economicly, etc is so severe, so damaging, that even if they ARE wrong we still need to do

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

RUE

Friday, March 16, 2007 2:35 AM

Hi Jasonzzz,

But there ARE facts which are indisputable.

One is that there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They are 'greenhouse' gases b/c they don't let the IR radiation (heat) re-radiate back into space. They absorb the radiation instead, trapping the heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape back into space.

The other is that those greenhouse gases - CO2 especially, are now at levels not historically compatible with our current climate.

The third is that the geological carbon cycle takes millions of years. And that is what we humans are messing with - we are taking large quantities of carbon which were stored for millions of years as oil and gas, and releasing it into the atmosphere as CO2. It will be millions of years before it is geologically stored again, if ever.

Given that, that humans are having a measurable and unprecedented effect on CO2 (greenhouse gas) levels in the atmosphere, and that that CO2 is not likely to re-equilibrate to normal levels any time soon, prudence would seem the wisest course.

JASONZZZ

Monday, March 19, 2007 7:44 AM

hmmm... so you mean indisputable as in the pre-Galileo (well, as mostly how history has written it to be anyways) geocentric view? I am not sure what that is. These are just categories and definitions, they aren't exactly facts. I mean, if you tell me that indisputable fact on the atomic weight of hydrogen - that would be pretty solid grounds for indisputable fact - very much arguably so... Even greenhouse gases don't simply behave in just one way as you describe it. Atmospheric science is very complex - we do not know all of the behaviors in the atmostphere, of the ones that we do know, we don't know how everything interplays & how everything behaves, we don't know how the reaction chains drives each other, and we don't know to what extend they play the most important role.

Greenhouse gases don't "trap heat", they insulate and adds additional resistance in the heat re-radiation; makes no difference in a passing layman's explanation, but it makes a difference conceptually in understanding how these processes work. The heat doesn't simply accumulate ad-infinitem, we'd all be cooked to a crisp and Earth would have turned into Venus by now if it were so.

CO2 levels - seems there are a lot more, more people in the world with ever increasing demand for absolutely new "Ikea" furnitures and burning more fossil fuels - we are leveling more forests. It never ends, but where would we get if we couple that together with Peak Oil? maybe it will self stablize (I won't count on it). But the thing is, the remainder of these "facts" really depend on the false belief and supposedly forgone conclusion that CO2 is the principal cause and the most major contributor to any indication of increased heat accumulation within the atmosphere *and* more importantly, that reducing CO2 level will reduce this said increased heat accumulation - neither has been shown.

More to the point, the models on these are still being worked on (not refined) and argued over (in the scientific sense) on what/which components have the more prevalent effect in insulating heat.

Couple of things that are getting worked on that are interesting are water vapor, even higher concentrations in the atmosphere than CO2 and higher insulating factor, but water vapors captured in clouds also play a role in reflecting sun light and radiation back out. The models are not quite there in getting just these 2 factors worked out yet - amongst the other unknown factors that they play.

There are other things too, are the current issues being caused by the highest concentration components or are there other smaller/lesser components playing a bigger role and kicking off a cascading set of effects - not knowing this will throw us off on a completely wrong track on reducing the wrong components and just not seeing the reduction work.

Then there the problem with the assumption that these trending are assuming linear behavior in the heat insulating/"absorption" levels. Pretty sure that it doesn't extrapolate in a linear sense, but there's a disconnect between the climate modelers and the programmers - must be, because it's not a problem being looked at.

Prudence is absolutely the wisest choice if it's pretty much free and you don't have to divert much attention or resources away from other things *and* that you are pretty sure that it won't cause another stupid human-engineered cascading set of irrepairable damages - which is what our entire premise on fixing the CO2 problem to begin with.

I am not advocating that we sit and do nothing. I am not even advocating that the human engineered problem doesn't exist - but the scientist don't have a good understanding of what is going on and how to fix it - the models all absolutely rubbish in doing what they are suppose to do (sure it's the best we've got, but it ain't no where near usable in predicting the kind of thing where we want to point the entire planet in one direction to fix things). Give me some good data and show me that it is going to shit and that doing this and this will have some real measura

RUE

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:57 PM

"These are just categories and definitions, they aren't exactly facts. Even greenhouse gases don't simply behave in just one way as you describe it."
Yes they do. If you take a cell containing CO2 and try to pass broad-spectrum IR through it, certain wavelengths will be absorbed. It's an indisputable fact. Here is the link to the IR (heat) absorption spectrum of CO2. http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
Now, you may argue about secondary effects and feedback, but greenhouse gases do indeed indisputably absorb IR (heat). They then reradiate that heat at a different IR wavelength, and eventually that heat might find a wavelength window to radiate out into space, but it will be at a new atmospheric heat content equilibrium.

"The heat doesn't simply accumulate ad-infinitum, we'd all be cooked to a crisp and Earth would have turned into Venus by now if it were so."
And indeed that is the scenario some scientists have drawn, assuming no negative feedback loops exist.

"water vapors captured in clouds also play a role in reflecting sun light and radiation back out"
Upper level clouds of a certain droplet size and density block sunlight. That's why Pinatubo - which ejected tonnes of sulfur oxides into the stratosphere - had a slight cooling effect for a couple of years. But all clouds don't act that way. Lower level clouds of small droplet size trap heat instead.

"the false belief and supposedly forgone conclusion that CO2 is the principal cause and the most major contributor to any indication of increased heat accumulation"
Atmospheric CO2 does indisputably absorb heat AND its level has indisputably gone up 19.4% since 1959. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm CO2 does therefore play a major role in greenhouse gas effects.

" the scientist don't have a good understanding of what is going on"
They estimate a 90% probability.

HOLLISGREEN

Sunday, March 8, 2009 5:22 PM

wow!

ASARIAN

Sunday, March 8, 2009 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
So Einstein (the homosexual plagerist) was wrong, ...

You're losing the high ground here, sweet-cakes. Oh wait, I think you never had it to begin with.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

ASARIAN

Sunday, March 8, 2009 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Einstein was a non-Semitic Jewish deadbeat dad, a liar and plagerist who liked it up the tailpipe at Jewish Bohemian Grove, whose thefts helped genocide 200,000 Christians in Japan. That's history.

Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere?

As for your delusions, this is paranoid schizophrenia. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, thinkin' you just weren't burdened with an overabundance of schooling. You're a stitch, though, in that you give a whole fresh meaning to the term "moon-brained." :)

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

ASARIAN

Sunday, March 8, 2009 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Piratenews,

I'm still waiting for you to admit that your lightspeed/frequency shift/kodak argument is craptastically wrong.

You know, the one where all visible light that reaches the moon is upshifted into becoming invisible light.

And thus would be invisible to the human eye, as well. :) So, that makes two dark sides of the Moon.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 8, 2009 6:48 PM

Hmm, Necroposting.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ASARIAN

Sunday, March 8, 2009 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Hmm, Necroposting.

LOL, you're right. :) Didn't even realize it.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

DREAMTROVE

Monday, March 9, 2009 4:27 AM

Necroposting, nice word. I do it intentionally sometimes, but only to resurrect interesting topics.

The fake moonlanding topic is dumb.

Here's the failproof logic: The Soviets could see every little dot of us in space, and would have totally called us out on a fake moonlanding. I've watched the videos, and I suspect that there is one shred of truth to the fake moonlanding story:

One of the videos, a color video of a dramatic US flag planting has all the markings of a staged photo op. Odd that no one was bothered by all the other transmissions being in B/W, correct me if I'm wrong, but the problems come from the flag, which harks back to an ealier fraudulent photo op.

The planting of the flag on Iwo Jima. The picture is actually of men planting a flag atop Iwo Jima, but when the reporters arrived to take the picture, the soldiers first had to take the American Flag down, and then plant it again, for the picture.

If you want to find American fraud, look for patriotism, and then don't look very far from it. Sinking of the Maine, 9-11, etc.

The flag planting video itself I'm more skeptical of. It was a televised event, and the communications technology was very sketchy. My guess, worst case, nothing was working right at the time, and the studio had probably considered the possibility, already filmed a mock up, and played it instead.

So, the moon landing, it had to be real, or the USSR would have known, and though the US might have silenced their analysis, we would've been the laughing stock of the world. This was such a big risk that no one would have ever attempted it. Imagine the field day China might have with us today if we presented a deflector shield, and faked a test of it. Everyone wants a missile defense system right now, just like they wanted a spaceship then, but no one knows how to build one. We can shoot missiles at missiles, but that's only a % chance. Russia is probably way ahead of us at this, even N. Ireland is doing well. Our last system that was battle tested came out with 1% efficiency. Assume we're doing much better today, we still have no deflector shield, and there would be no way to fake it without being mocked internationally.