Science > Physics > The laws of human physics and the laws of extraterrestrial physics!
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2003 09:10:38 AM |
| Object: |
The laws of human physics and the laws of extraterrestrial physics! |
The laws of physics by Stanton Freidman
I am sick and tired of people complaining that one or another law of physics
would have to be violated by flying saucers, and, therefore, since I am a
nuclear physicist, how can I say some UFOs are alien spacecraft?
There is a long list of such supposed violations: It would take too long to get
here from other star systems. It would take too much energy to get here from
other star systems. Right angle turns are impossible. High accelerations would
violate the laws of physics. People can't be taken through walls without
damaging the walls or the people. Etc. ad nauseum.
What we seem to be dealing with are claims by people who don't understand the
laws of physics, who have no comprehension that the feasibility of accomplishing
a particular objective is almost completely dependent on the engineering
assumptions made, and that much of the blind acceptance we give to today's
technology would have been totally rejected by other noisy negativists 100 or
more years ago.
It is easier and perhaps more erudite to suggest that something is impossible
because it supposedly violates the laws of physics rather than admitting, "I
don't know how to do that." Can we reach the stars? Can we withstand high
accelerations? Can we go into orbit? Can we make powerful computers that will
fit on a desk?
Slide rules and vacuum tubes won't cut it for today's computers. Neither will
transistors nor integrated circuits. . . But micro integrated circuits will do
it. They were only attained with the expenditure of billions of dollars and
thousands of man-years of effort by physicists and others.
The key thought is that progress comes from doing things differently in an
unpredictable way.
Acceleration
How much acceleration can people stand? This, of course, is a biology question,
but the simple answer to so many such questions is that it depends on the
duration of the acceleration, the direction of the force acting on the person
with regard to her body, the magnitude of that force, the restraints on the
person, etc. As it happens, the shorter the duration, the more one can stand.
This question is often confused by the units we physicists use. One G (ask any
physics class) is 9.8 meters per second squared-which means nothing to most
people. In normal units that is about 21 miles per hour per second. NASA data
shows that a trained pilot can perform a tracking task while being accelerated
at 14 Gs for two minutes.
Think about that for a moment. 14 Gs is about 300 miles per hour per second. A
Corvette going from 0 to 60 miles an hour in 6 seconds if uniformly accelerated
is pulling 60/6 or 10 mph per second, or only about 0.5 G’s! It turns out one
can withstand 30 Gs for 1 second without damage, if properly constrained, and
the force is in the right direction with regard to the body.
Notice how the astronauts are launched on their backs because people can stand
much more acceleration back to front than foot to head. Note, too, that contour
couches are used to distribute the load and that strong seat belt restraints are
employed.
There are really no laws of physics being violated here, though one book
foolishly claimed that when one gets to 8 G's, one dies. True, if one slams a
standing unrestrained person into a brick wall....Dr. Stapp actually lived
through deceleration of 43 Gs (From over 600 mph to zero), for a fraction of a
second. The rocket sled can be seen at the Clyde Tombaugh Space Museum in
Alamogordo, NM. No, you wouldn't catch me on such a sled.
Right angle turns
Some have said that saucers making right angle turns violate the laws of
physics. The laws of physics say nothing about the possibility of making rapid
right angle turns. Our present jet and rocket technology, which work by carrying
along something thrown out the back end, is not capable of providing right angle
turns, because we cannot rapidly change the direction of the rearward thrust.
A magneto-aerodynamic system which could provide rapid changes of the direction
of electric and magnetic forces probably could provide right angle turns. More
likely there is a technique about which we know nothing.
Sonic booms
Sometimes it is claimed that one cannot go faster than the speed of sound in the
atmosphere without producing a sonic boom. Therefore, any claims of supersonic
flying saucers without booms being heard would mean the laws of physics would be
violated. The truth is that the production of a sonic boom is dependent on the
shape of the high speed object and its interaction with the surrounding boundary
layer of air. If the air is electrically ionized (made to be a conducting
plasma) then there may NOT be an accompanying sonic boom.
Energy and time
I have been told that getting here from another solar system in a time shorter
than the average person's life span would take far too much energy and would
violate the laws of physics, or it would take thousands or millions of years.
The fact is that the feasibility of any space travel is based upon the
assumptions made.
As I noted in my "Challenge to SETI Specialists" (see my Web site at
www.vj-enterprises.com/sipage.html), a "scientific" calculation in 1941 oft he
required initial launch weight of a chemical rocket able to get a man to the
moon and back concluded it would be a million million tons.
Dr. Campbell was off by a factor of 300 Million! He made all the wrong
assumptions, such as single stage rockets, a limit of 1G acceleration, using a
retrorocket to slow down when approaching earth on the return, assuming much too
low an exhaust velocity, and assuming that the rocket would have to provide all
the energy.
We use cosmic freeloading such as the earth's rotation of 1000 mph when
launching to the east near the equator, the gravity field of the moon to pull in
the rocket, and the earth's atmosphere to slow us down on return. It was Dr.
Campbell's ignorance that was the problem, not the laws of physics.
Another misunderstanding of the laws of physics comes from people pointing out
that since one would have to approach the speed of light (670,000,000 mph) to go
to nearby solar systems, the amount of energy required would be humongus because
the mass of the rocket increases as one approaches the speed of light. However,
it only takes one year at 1G acceleration to get close to the speed of light.
If one uses nuclear fusion of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and helium-3 (light
helium one produces charged particles which can be directed by electric and
magnetic fields) then there is ten million times as much energy per article as
they can get in a chemical rocket. The particles are born that way and are not
accelerated to that energy.
In addition, time slows down for things moving that fast to the point that at
something like 99.99 % of light speed, it only takes a little over six months
pilot time (not counting acceleration time) to go the 39 light year distance to
Zeta l and Zeta 2 Reticuli.
Also, if one uses gravitational assist (the traveler doesn't provide the energy)
as we do on all our deep space probes, the increase in mass wouldn't matter
anyway. A black hole would be quite convenient.
Moving through walls
"But Stan, how do the laws of physics permit people to be pulled through walls
and windows without breaking them or the person?" I haven't the faintest idea. I
am sure that 150 years ago the idea of having information enter a closed room
and be reproduced to make pictures and sounds on TV and radio sets using
electricity, which also wasn't known at that time, would have been thought
absurd.
Remember that radio waves have been reaching Earth for billions of years even
though we weren't aware of them. Maybe we will learn how, with strong electric
or magnetic or unknowium fields, to go through the mostly empty space of walls
and windows with the mostly empty space of people.
New nanotechnology techniques are truly as extraordinary as the breakthroughs in
quantum mechanics, relativity, radioactivity, and solid state physics over the
past century or so. Does anybody really believe that the progress has stopped? I
certainly don't.
That we cannot either explain or duplicate what to us seems like anomalous
technology, doesn't mean a more advanced society didn't get there a long time
ago. It is our lack of understanding that provides the limits, not the laws of
physics.
Limited realms
Remember that the closest-to-each-other pair of sun like stars, Zeta 1 and 2
Reticuli, are a billion years older than the sun. An important aspect of the
laws of physic is that they apply in limited realms. Einstein's relativity
involving increase of mass and slowing down of time is only significant at
velocities near that of light, or in situations where the conditions are very
different from "normal"-for example, near very very dense black holes or neutron
stars.
Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, normally deal with the world of the very
small. In the biological sciences we find that a great variety of very new micro
scopes enable us to see the very small world. Nanotechnology and quantum dots
are part of that very small world.
The myriad of applications for lasers, from the check-out counters, to CDs, to
very sophisticated analyses of materials, to the surgeon's special tools
frequently accomplishing what was thought to be impossible shoul dhelp us
recognize that violations of the laws of physic are not really very common.
What new realms will be discovered in the next decade or in the next century?
New variations on old theme of the world of physics?
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The laws of human physics and the laws of extraterrestrial physics! |
22 Aug 2003 10:44:48 AM |
|
|
"Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." wrote:
The laws of physics by Stanton Freidman
***** meter is uncrated. Dear reader will note that the original
poster spewed 180 lines and managed to say nothing at all. "Sir
Arthur" has all the intellectual impact of a gay interior decorator
with a hangnail or a California governor abandoned by his own
political party. They both interminably whine while being forgotten
to death.
Science has a mathemtical model, testable new predictions thereform,
and scholarly literature citations to document the progressive
validity of supportive assertions, e.g.,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
I am sick and tired of people complaining that one or another law of physics
would have to be violated by flying saucers, and, therefore, since I am a
nuclear physicist, how can I say some UFOs are alien spacecraft?
***** meter's big banana plug is inserted.
There is a long list of such supposed violations: It would take too long to get
here from other star systems. It would take too much energy to get here from
other star systems. Right angle turns are impossible. High accelerations would
violate the laws of physics. People can't be taken through walls without
damaging the walls or the people. Etc. ad nauseum.
What we seem to be dealing with are claims by people who don't understand the
laws of physics, who have no comprehension that the feasibility of accomplishing
a particular objective is almost completely dependent on the engineering
assumptions made,
***** meter's needle quivers.
and that much of the blind acceptance we give to today's
technology would have been totally rejected by other noisy negativists 100 or
more years ago.
It is easier and perhaps more erudite to suggest that something is impossible
because it supposedly violates the laws of physics rather than admitting, "I
don't know how to do that." Can we reach the stars? Can we withstand high
accelerations? Can we go into orbit? Can we make powerful computers that will
fit on a desk?
0.01 on the logarithmic ***** scale. So far it's Liberal Arts cheap
dialectic and critique *****, not quality physical sciences blowing
hypersonic plasma out your ***** *****.
Slide rules and vacuum tubes won't cut it for today's computers.
Noting that slide rules and vacuum tubes constituted the first
computers. Hello "Amazing Grace" Hopper! Computer lights are LEDs
not filament bulbs. BFD. Still 0.01 on the logarithmic *****
scale - ***** arguments.
Neither will
transistors nor integrated circuits. . . But micro integrated circuits will do
it. They were only attained with the expenditure of billions of dollars and
thousands of man-years of effort by physicists and others.
Fabs are engineering. They contain no scientists. You don't know the
differences among science, technology, engineering, production, and
Sales & Marketing. Still 0.01 on the logarithmic ***** scale -
***** arguments. Bulk parallel fabrication means each completed valve
has an infinitesimal value even amortized over the cost of the fab.
Each transistor in a CPU is of such small financial value that it is
beneath contempt to even consider it. The connection pins cost hugely
more.
The key thought is that progress comes from doing things differently in an
unpredictable way.
Christ, are you ever going to say something or will you continue
vigorously celebrating the picking of your dingleberries? Your real
parents were infinitely wise in going didi-mau immediately after you
were born.
Acceleration
How much acceleration can people stand?
Less than 2 gees for less than a week cumulative. NASA centrifuge
studies.
~40 gees as impulse in rocket sleds. Air Force studies by John Stapp.
~8 gees in a bad (is there any other kind?) Russian space capsule
recovery.
[snip whining crap]
Some have said that saucers making right angle turns violate the laws of
physics. The laws of physics say nothing about the possibility of making rapid
right angle turns. Our present jet and rocket technology, which work by carrying
along something thrown out the back end, is not capable of providing right angle
turns, because we cannot rapidly change the direction of the rearward thrust.
Automan in his Autocar. Painfully bad even as a TV sitcom. Still
0.01 on the logarithmic ***** scale - ***** arguments.
A magneto-aerodynamic system which could provide rapid changes of the direction
of electric and magnetic forces probably could provide right angle turns. More
likely there is a technique about which we know nothing.
***** meter hits 0.02. This guy couldn't sell fire and brimstone
to a storefront church filled with sweating Oklahoma hard shell
Baptists having their fields eaten by Mormon crickets.
[snip more wandering crap]
Energy and time
I have been told that getting here from another solar system in a time shorter
than the average person's life span would take far too much energy and would
violate the laws of physics, or it would take thousands or millions of years.
The fact is that the feasibility of any space travel is based upon the
assumptions made.
Go ahead, finesse Special Relativity with an "assumption". *****
meter hits 0.02. Common ignorance plus a fat dollop of common
stooopdity.
[snip more wandering crap]
Another misunderstanding of the laws of physics comes from people pointing out
that since one would have to approach the speed of light (670,000,000 mph) to go
to nearby solar systems, the amount of energy required would be humongus because
the mass of the rocket increases as one approaches the speed of light. However,
it only takes one year at 1G acceleration to get close to the speed of light.
If one uses nuclear fusion of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and helium-3 (light
helium one produces charged particles which can be directed by electric and
magnetic fields) then there is ten million times as much energy per article as
they can get in a chemical rocket. The particles are born that way and are not
accelerated to that energy.
Hey stooopid, do the explicit calculations, "The Starflight Handbook,"
Eugene Mallove and Gregory Matloff. There are no real or extrapolated
sets of engineering circumstances - Bussard ramjet to a thousand
tonnes of antimatter neatly tucked under your tiny scrotum, that takes
you anywhere interesting in real time. The 8.78 lightyear round trip
to Alpha Centuri will kill you dead as a medically sterilized
syringe. If you go slow, cosmic radiation cooks you dead as you age
to death. If you go fast, Doppler-shifted cosmic radiation fries you
like a rasher of bacon.
In addition, time slows down for things moving that fast to the point that at
something like 99.99 % of light speed, it only takes a little over six months
pilot time (not counting acceleration time) to go the 39 light year distance to
Zeta l and Zeta 2 Reticuli.
Hey stooopid, the investors at home age at the normal rate. Nobody
will put up any cash. Nobody travels anywhere in this universe in
real time unless there is wholly new and unanticipated physics
reducible to practice discovered.
Also, if one uses gravitational assist (the traveler doesn't provide the energy)
as we do on all our deep space probes, the increase in mass wouldn't matter
anyway. A black hole would be quite convenient.
Idiot. "If we could travel thousands of lightyears in a flash to
arrive at a black hole, we could use it to travel thousands of
lightyears the slow way." BTW, git, black holes are rather dirty with
ambient radiation. You had best also correct for things a like
Lense-Thirring frame dragging lest you end up in places we'd all like
to see you go.
Moving through walls
"But Stan, how do the laws of physics permit people to be pulled through walls
and windows without breaking them or the person?" I haven't the faintest idea.
When you have nothing to say, don't.
[snip more crap]
Limited realms
Remember that the closest-to-each-other pair of sun like stars, Zeta 1 and 2
Reticuli, are a billion years older than the sun. An important aspect of the
laws of physic is that they apply in limited realms.
General Relativity, being a covariant tensor theory, is
backgroundless. It is the whole (classical) universe contained within
in ten equations.
[snip more crap]
What new realms will be discovered in the next decade or in the next century?
New variations on old theme of the world of physics?
After 180 lines of great boredom we arrive at... nothing. *****
meter's big banana plug is de-inserted and wiped with a Povidone
iodine cleansing rag. Here folks, read something interesting,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/buffalo.htm
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." |
|
| Title: Re: The laws of human physics and the laws of extraterrestrial physics! |
22 Aug 2003 11:16:46 AM |
|
|
In article <3F463A70.A3D30D6F@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al says...
"Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." wrote:
The laws of physics by Stanton Freidman
***** meter is uncrated. Dear reader will note that the original
poster spewed 180 lines and managed to say nothing at all. "Sir
Arthur" has all the intellectual impact of a gay interior decorator
with a hangnail or a California governor abandoned by his own
political party. They both interminably whine while being forgotten
to death.
Science has a mathemtical model, testable new predictions thereform,
and scholarly literature citations to document the progressive
validity of supportive assertions, e.g.,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
I am sick and tired of people complaining that one or another law of physics
would have to be violated by flying saucers, and, therefore, since I am a
nuclear physicist, how can I say some UFOs are alien spacecraft?
***** meter's big banana plug is inserted.
There is a long list of such supposed violations: It would take too long to get
here from other star systems. It would take too much energy to get here from
other star systems. Right angle turns are impossible. High accelerations would
violate the laws of physics. People can't be taken through walls without
damaging the walls or the people. Etc. ad nauseum.
What we seem to be dealing with are claims by people who don't understand the
laws of physics, who have no comprehension that the feasibility of accomplishing
a particular objective is almost completely dependent on the engineering
assumptions made,
***** meter's needle quivers.
and that much of the blind acceptance we give to today's
technology would have been totally rejected by other noisy negativists 100 or
more years ago.
It is easier and perhaps more erudite to suggest that something is impossible
because it supposedly violates the laws of physics rather than admitting, "I
don't know how to do that." Can we reach the stars? Can we withstand high
accelerations? Can we go into orbit? Can we make powerful computers that will
fit on a desk?
0.01 on the logarithmic ***** scale. So far it's Liberal Arts cheap
dialectic and critique *****, not quality physical sciences blowing
hypersonic plasma out your ***** *****.
Slide rules and vacuum tubes won't cut it for today's computers.
Noting that slide rules and vacuum tubes constituted the first
computers. Hello "Amazing Grace" Hopper! Computer lights are LEDs
not filament bulbs. BFD. Still 0.01 on the logarithmic *****
scale - ***** arguments.
Neither will
transistors nor integrated circuits. . . But micro integrated circuits will do
it. They were only attained with the expenditure of billions of dollars and
thousands of man-years of effort by physicists and others.
Fabs are engineering. They contain no scientists. You don't know the
differences among science, technology, engineering, production, and
Sales & Marketing. Still 0.01 on the logarithmic ***** scale -
***** arguments. Bulk parallel fabrication means each completed valve
has an infinitesimal value even amortized over the cost of the fab.
Each transistor in a CPU is of such small financial value that it is
beneath contempt to even consider it. The connection pins cost hugely
more.
The key thought is that progress comes from doing things differently in an
unpredictable way.
Christ, are you ever going to say something or will you continue
vigorously celebrating the picking of your dingleberries? Your real
parents were infinitely wise in going didi-mau immediately after you
were born.
Acceleration
How much acceleration can people stand?
Less than 2 gees for less than a week cumulative. NASA centrifuge
studies.
~40 gees as impulse in rocket sleds. Air Force studies by John Stapp.
~8 gees in a bad (is there any other kind?) Russian space capsule
recovery.
[snip whining crap]
Some have said that saucers making right angle turns violate the laws of
physics. The laws of physics say nothing about the possibility of making rapid
right angle turns. Our present jet and rocket technology, which work by carrying
along something thrown out the back end, is not capable of providing right angle
turns, because we cannot rapidly change the direction of the rearward thrust.
Automan in his Autocar. Painfully bad even as a TV sitcom. Still
0.01 on the logarithmic ***** scale - ***** arguments.
A magneto-aerodynamic system which could provide rapid changes of the direction
of electric and magnetic forces probably could provide right angle turns. More
likely there is a technique about which we know nothing.
***** meter hits 0.02. This guy couldn't sell fire and brimstone
to a storefront church filled with sweating Oklahoma hard shell
Baptists having their fields eaten by Mormon crickets.
[snip more wandering crap]
Energy and time
I have been told that getting here from another solar system in a time shorter
than the average person's life span would take far too much energy and would
violate the laws of physics, or it would take thousands or millions of years.
The fact is that the feasibility of any space travel is based upon the
assumptions made.
Go ahead, finesse Special Relativity with an "assumption". *****
meter hits 0.02. Common ignorance plus a fat dollop of common
stooopdity.
[snip more wandering crap]
Another misunderstanding of the laws of physics comes from people pointing out
that since one would have to approach the speed of light (670,000,000 mph) to go
to nearby solar systems, the amount of energy required would be humongus because
the mass of the rocket increases as one approaches the speed of light. However,
it only takes one year at 1G acceleration to get close to the speed of light.
If one uses nuclear fusion of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and helium-3 (light
helium one produces charged particles which can be directed by electric and
magnetic fields) then there is ten million times as much energy per article as
they can get in a chemical rocket. The particles are born that way and are not
accelerated to that energy.
Hey stooopid, do the explicit calculations, "The Starflight Handbook,"
Eugene Mallove and Gregory Matloff. There are no real or extrapolated
sets of engineering circumstances - Bussard ramjet to a thousand
tonnes of antimatter neatly tucked under your tiny scrotum, that takes
you anywhere interesting in real time. The 8.78 lightyear round trip
to Alpha Centuri will kill you dead as a medically sterilized
syringe. If you go slow, cosmic radiation cooks you dead as you age
to death. If you go fast, Doppler-shifted cosmic radiation fries you
like a rasher of bacon.
In addition, time slows down for things moving that fast to the point that at
something like 99.99 % of light speed, it only takes a little over six months
pilot time (not counting acceleration time) to go the 39 light year distance to
Zeta l and Zeta 2 Reticuli.
Hey stooopid, the investors at home age at the normal rate. Nobody
will put up any cash. Nobody travels anywhere in this universe in
real time unless there is wholly new and unanticipated physics
reducible to practice discovered.
Also, if one uses gravitational assist (the traveler doesn't provide the energy)
as we do on all our deep space probes, the increase in mass wouldn't matter
anyway. A black hole would be quite convenient.
Idiot. "If we could travel thousands of lightyears in a flash to
arrive at a black hole, we could use it to travel thousands of
lightyears the slow way." BTW, git, black holes are rather dirty with
ambient radiation. You had best also correct for things a like
Lense-Thirring frame dragging lest you end up in places we'd all like
to see you go.
Moving through walls
"But Stan, how do the laws of physics permit people to be pulled through walls
and windows without breaking them or the person?" I haven't the faintest idea.
When you have nothing to say, don't.
[snip more crap]
Limited realms
Remember that the closest-to-each-other pair of sun like stars, Zeta 1 and 2
Reticuli, are a billion years older than the sun. An important aspect of the
laws of physic is that they apply in limited realms.
General Relativity, being a covariant tensor theory, is
backgroundless. It is the whole (classical) universe contained within
in ten equations.
[snip more crap]
What new realms will be discovered in the next decade or in the next century?
New variations on old theme of the world of physics?
After 180 lines of great boredom we arrive at... nothing. *****
meter's big banana plug is de-inserted and wiped with a Povidone
iodine cleansing rag. Here folks, read something interesting,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/buffalo.htm
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
Thanks for your analysis Uncle Al, but every one
of your rebuttals were fundamentally wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Keane III" |
|
| Title: Re: The laws of human physics and the laws of extraterrestrial physics! |
22 Aug 2003 02:26:44 PM |
|
|
Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message news:Olr1b.16795$cJ5.1882@www.newsranger.com...
In article <3F463A70.A3D30D6F@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al says...
***** meter hits 0.02. This guy couldn't sell fire and brimstone
to a storefront church filled with sweating Oklahoma hard shell
Baptists having their fields eaten by Mormon crickets.
Thanks for your analysis Uncle Al, but every one
of your rebuttals were fundamentally wrong.
Sir Arthur. Being able to sell fire and brimstone to a
storefront church filled with sweating Oklahoma hard
shell Baptists having their fields eaten by Mormon
crickets isn't necessarily a good thing. Are you sure
that you could? There were no real rebuttals and you
not only didn't go off the scale you only registered a
0.02 on Al's ***** meter. Do you have any idea how
rare that is?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "hugh" |
|
| Title: Re: The laws of human physics and the laws of extraterrestrial physics! |
22 Aug 2003 11:42:29 AM |
|
|
Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote:
In article <3F463A70.A3D30D6F@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al says...
"Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." wrote:
The laws of physics by Stanton Freidman
***** meter is uncrated. Dear reader will note that the original
poster spewed 180 lines and managed to say nothing at all. "Sir
Arthur" has all the intellectual impact of a gay interior decorator
with a hangnail or a California governor abandoned by his own
political party. They both interminably whine while being forgotten
to death.
Science has a mathemtical model, testable new predictions thereform,
and scholarly literature citations to document the progressive
validity of supportive assertions, e.g.,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
I am sick and tired of people complaining that one or another law of physics
would have to be violated by flying saucers, and, therefore, since I am a
nuclear physicist, how can I say some UFOs are alien spacecraft?
***** meter's big banana plug is inserted.
There is a long list of such supposed violations: It would take too long to get
here from other star systems. It would take too much energy to get here from
other star systems. Right angle turns are impossible. High accelerations would
violate the laws of physics. People can't be taken through walls without
damaging the walls or the people. Etc. ad nauseum.
What we seem to be dealing with are claims by people who don't understand the
laws of physics, who have no comprehension that the feasibility of accomplishing
a particular objective is almost completely dependent on the engineering
assumptions made,
***** meter's needle quivers.
and that much of the blind acceptance we give to today's
technology would have been totally rejected by other noisy negativists 100 or
more years ago.
It is easier and perhaps more erudite to suggest that something is impossible
because it supposedly violates the laws of physics rather than admitting, "I
don't know how to do that." Can we reach the stars? Can we withstand high
accelerations? Can we go into orbit? Can we make powerful computers that will
fit on a desk?
0.01 on the logarithmic ***** scale. So far it's Liberal Arts cheap
dialectic and critique *****, not quality physical sciences blowing
hypersonic plasma out your ***** *****.
Slide rules and vacuum tubes won't cut it for today's computers.
Noting that slide rules and vacuum tubes constituted the first
computers. Hello "Amazing Grace" Hopper! Computer lights are LEDs
not filament bulbs. BFD. Still 0.01 on the logarithmic *****
scale - ***** arguments.
Neither will
transistors nor integrated circuits. . . But micro integrated circuits will do
it. They were only attained with the expenditure of billions of dollars and
thousands of man-years of effort by physicists and others.
Fabs are engineering. They contain no scientists. You don't know the
differences among science, technology, engineering, production, and
Sales & Marketing. Still 0.01 on the logarithmic ***** scale -
***** arguments. Bulk parallel fabrication means each completed valve
has an infinitesimal value even amortized over the cost of the fab.
Each transistor in a CPU is of such small financial value that it is
beneath contempt to even consider it. The connection pins cost hugely
more.
The key thought is that progress comes from doing things differently in an
unpredictable way.
Christ, are you ever going to say something or will you continue
vigorously celebrating the picking of your dingleberries? Your real
parents were infinitely wise in going didi-mau immediately after you
were born.
Acceleration
How much acceleration can people stand?
Less than 2 gees for less than a week cumulative. NASA centrifuge
studies.
~40 gees as impulse in rocket sleds. Air Force studies by John Stapp.
~8 gees in a bad (is there any other kind?) Russian space capsule
recovery.
[snip whining crap]
Some have said that saucers making right angle turns violate the laws of
physics. The laws of physics say nothing about the possibility of making rapid
right angle turns. Our present jet and rocket technology, which work by carrying
along something thrown out the back end, is not capable of providing right angle
turns, because we cannot rapidly change the direction of the rearward thrust.
Automan in his Autocar. Painfully bad even as a TV sitcom. Still
0.01 on the logarithmic ***** scale - ***** arguments.
A magneto-aerodynamic system which could provide rapid changes of the direction
of electric and magnetic forces probably could provide right angle turns. More
likely there is a technique about which we know nothing.
***** meter hits 0.02. This guy couldn't sell fire and brimstone
to a storefront church filled with sweating Oklahoma hard shell
Baptists having their fields eaten by Mormon crickets.
[snip more wandering crap]
Energy and time
I have been told that getting here from another solar system in a time shorter
than the average person's life span would take far too much energy and would
violate the laws of physics, or it would take thousands or millions of years.
The fact is that the feasibility of any space travel is based upon the
assumptions made.
Go ahead, finesse Special Relativity with an "assumption". *****
meter hits 0.02. Common ignorance plus a fat dollop of common
stooopdity.
[snip more wandering crap]
Another misunderstanding of the laws of physics comes from people pointing out
that since one would have to approach the speed of light (670,000,000 mph) to go
to nearby solar systems, the amount of energy required would be humongus because
the mass of the rocket increases as one approaches the speed of light. However,
it only takes one year at 1G acceleration to get close to the speed of light.
If one uses nuclear fusion of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and helium-3 (light
helium one produces charged particles which can be directed by electric and
magnetic fields) then there is ten million times as much energy per article as
they can get in a chemical rocket. The particles are born that way and are not
accelerated to that energy.
Hey stooopid, do the explicit calculations, "The Starflight Handbook,"
Eugene Mallove and Gregory Matloff. There are no real or extrapolated
sets of engineering circumstances - Bussard ramjet to a thousand
tonnes of antimatter neatly tucked under your tiny scrotum, that takes
you anywhere interesting in real time. The 8.78 lightyear round trip
to Alpha Centuri will kill you dead as a medically sterilized
syringe. If you go slow, cosmic radiation cooks you dead as you age
to death. If you go fast, Doppler-shifted cosmic radiation fries you
like a rasher of bacon.
In addition, time slows down for things moving that fast to the point that at
something like 99.99 % of light speed, it only takes a little over six months
pilot time (not counting acceleration time) to go the 39 light year distance to
Zeta l and Zeta 2 Reticuli.
Hey stooopid, the investors at home age at the normal rate. Nobody
will put up any cash. Nobody travels anywhere in this universe in
real time unless there is wholly new and unanticipated physics
reducible to practice discovered.
Also, if one uses gravitational assist (the traveler doesn't provide the energy)
as we do on all our deep space probes, the increase in mass wouldn't matter
anyway. A black hole would be quite convenient.
Idiot. "If we could travel thousands of lightyears in a flash to
arrive at a black hole, we could use it to travel thousands of
lightyears the slow way." BTW, git, black holes are rather dirty with
ambient radiation. You had best also correct for things a like
Lense-Thirring frame dragging lest you end up in places we'd all like
to see you go.
Moving through walls
"But Stan, how do the laws of physics permit people to be pulled through walls
and windows without breaking them or the person?" I haven't the faintest idea.
When you have nothing to say, don't.
[snip more crap]
Limited realms
Remember that the closest-to-each-other pair of sun like stars, Zeta 1 and 2
Reticuli, are a billion years older than the sun. An important aspect of the
laws of physic is that they apply in limited realms.
General Relativity, being a covariant tensor theory, is
backgroundless. It is the whole (classical) universe contained within
in ten equations.
[snip more crap]
What new realms will be discovered in the next decade or in the next century?
New variations on old theme of the world of physics?
After 180 lines of great boredom we arrive at... nothing. *****
meter's big banana plug is de-inserted and wiped with a Povidone
iodine cleansing rag. Here folks, read something interesting,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/buffalo.htm
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
Thanks for your analysis Uncle Al, but every one
of your rebuttals were fundamentally wrong.
And you Artiepuss/Chuck are fundamentally stupid
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dick Hertz Hey, whos Dick Hertz?" |
|
| Title: Re: The laws of human physics and the laws of extraterrestrial physics! |
23 Aug 2003 02:37:33 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Uncle Al wrote:
"Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." wrote:
Uncle Al, you may be interested in knowing that "Sir Arthur" is really
one Jerry M. Kolnick, of Portland, Oregon. Jerry Kolnick has a fairly
long history on Usenet, going back approximately to 1995. You could
think of him as Archimedes Plutonium without the original material.
Googling for his name may be amusing and educational.
The laws of physics by Stanton Freidman
Yes, this is how Jerry Kolnick does things. He copies and pastes huge
volumes of other people's words. Unlike Archimedes Plutonium, he has
nothing of his own to say, though frequently he does repost other
people's material without attribution. I believe that the word for this
is "plagiarism."
Jerry Kolnick has lost numerous ISP accounts for this sort of behavior,
and has been the recipient of highly entertaining legal spankage. The
Washington Post spanked severely him in 1996 for disseminating a
redacted version of a copyrighted Washington Post story via Usenet,
crudely edited in such a manner as to imply the reporter supported his
kooky cause of the day. That poast is still in the Google archives for
the whole world to see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4lf2vh%24caq%40nadine.teleport.com
And the State of Oregon spanked him resoundingly in 1997 for falsely
claiming to be "Dr. Richard X. Frager, MD" and giving out rather dubious
and in fact dangerously stupid medical advice in
alt.support.attention-deficit.
***** meter is uncrated. Dear reader will note that the original
I have to get one of those. With this character, however, you may need
a spare--I hear that ***** meters sometimes spontaneously combust at
the very mention of his name.
poster spewed 180 lines and managed to say nothing at all. "Sir
Arthur" has all the intellectual impact of a gay interior decorator
with a hangnail or a California governor abandoned by his own
political party. They both interminably whine while being forgotten
to death.
Oh, Jerry Kolnick gets attention. For instance, the newsfroup
alt.usenet.kooks gave him the Looney Maroon Award for January 1998. I
don't think this is the kind of attention he wants. However, given his
apparent lack of functional synapses, he will have to like it or lump it.
Speaking of a.u.k, I have taken the liberty of adding a.u.k to the
newsfroups list, as Jerry Kolnick is always on topic there. Likewise,
those of his fellow loons who, whenever he is criticized, gird their
loins, put on their big clown shoes and big red rubber clown noses and
leap to his defense, are likewise always on topic in a.u.k. (Hi, Mop
Jockey! Hi, Garrrry! Hi, Knud! Hi, Chuckwheat! Seen any flying
saucers lately?)
Why they trip over themselves running to defend a known and proven liar
who was caught falsely pretending to be a medical doctor, I do not know.
But I suppose one cannot expect better from kooks.
Science has a mathemtical model, testable new predictions thereform,
and scholarly literature citations to document the progressive
validity of supportive assertions, e.g.,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
I am sick and tired of people complaining that one or another law of physics
would have to be violated by flying saucers, and, therefore, since I am a
nuclear physicist, how can I say some UFOs are alien spacecraft?
***** meter's big banana plug is inserted.
There is a long list of such supposed violations: It would take too long to get
here from other star systems. It would take too much energy to get here from
other star systems. Right angle turns are impossible. High accelerations would
violate the laws of physics. People can't be taken through walls without
damaging the walls or the people. Etc. ad nauseum.
What we seem to be dealing with are claims by people who don't understand the
laws of physics, who have no comprehension that the feasibility of accomplishing
a particular objective is almost completely dependent on the engineering
assumptions made,
***** meter's needle quivers.
and that much of the blind acceptance we give to today's
technology would have been totally rejected by other noisy negativists 100 or
more years ago.
It is easier and perhaps more erudite to suggest that something is impossible
because it supposedly violates the laws of physics rather than admitting, "I
don't know how to do that." Can we reach the stars? Can we withstand high
accelerations? Can we go into orbit? Can we make powerful computers that will
fit on a desk?
0.01 on the logarithmic ***** scale. So far it's Liberal Arts cheap
dialectic and critique *****, not quality physical sciences blowing
hypersonic plasma out your ***** *****.
Slide rules and vacuum tubes won't cut it for today's computers.
Noting that slide rules and vacuum tubes constituted the first
computers. Hello "Amazing Grace" Hopper! Computer lights are LEDs
not filament bulbs. BFD. Still 0.01 on the logarithmic *****
scale - ***** arguments.
Neither will
transistors nor integrated circuits. . . But micro integrated circuits will do
it. They were only attained with the expenditure of billions of dollars and
thousands of man-years of effort by physicists and others.
Fabs are engineering. They contain no scientists. You don't know the
differences among science, technology, engineering, production, and
Sales & Marketing. Still 0.01 on the logarithmic ***** scale -
***** arguments. Bulk parallel fabrication means each completed valve
has an infinitesimal value even amortized over the cost of the fab.
Each transistor in a CPU is of such small financial value that it is
beneath contempt to even consider it. The connection pins cost hugely
more.
The key thought is that progress comes from doing things differently in an
unpredictable way.
Christ, are you ever going to say something or will you continue
vigorously celebrating the picking of your dingleberries? Your real
parents were infinitely wise in going didi-mau immediately after you
were born.
Acceleration
How much acceleration can people stand?
Less than 2 gees for less than a week cumulative. NASA centrifuge
studies.
~40 gees as impulse in rocket sleds. Air Force studies by John Stapp.
~8 gees in a bad (is there any other kind?) Russian space capsule
recovery.
[snip whining crap]
Some have said that saucers making right angle turns violate the laws of
physics. The laws of physics say nothing about the possibility of making rapid
right angle turns. Our present jet and rocket technology, which work by carrying
along something thrown out the back end, is not capable of providing right angle
turns, because we cannot rapidly change the direction of the rearward thrust.
Automan in his Autocar. Painfully bad even as a TV sitcom. Still
0.01 on the logarithmic ***** scale - ***** arguments.
A magneto-aerodynamic system which could provide rapid changes of the direction
of electric and magnetic forces probably could provide right angle turns. More
likely there is a technique about which we know nothing.
***** meter hits 0.02. This guy couldn't sell fire and brimstone
to a storefront church filled with sweating Oklahoma hard shell
Baptists having their fields eaten by Mormon crickets.
[snip more wandering crap]
Energy and time
I have been told that getting here from another solar system in a time shorter
than the average person's life span would take far too much energy and would
violate the laws of physics, or it would take thousands or millions of years.
The fact is that the feasibility of any space travel is based upon the
assumptions made.
Go ahead, finesse Special Relativity with an "assumption". *****
meter hits 0.02. Common ignorance plus a fat dollop of common
stooopdity.
[snip more wandering crap]
Another misunderstanding of the laws of physics comes from people pointing out
that since one would have to approach the speed of light (670,000,000 mph) to go
to nearby solar systems, the amount of energy required would be humongus because
the mass of the rocket increases as one approaches the speed of light. However,
it only takes one year at 1G acceleration to get close to the speed of light.
If one uses nuclear fusion of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and helium-3 (light
helium one produces charged particles which can be directed by electric and
magnetic fields) then there is ten million times as much energy per article as
they can get in a chemical rocket. The particles are born that way and are not
accelerated to that energy.
Hey stooopid, do the explicit calculations, "The Starflight Handbook,"
Eugene Mallove and Gregory Matloff. There are no real or extrapolated
sets of engineering circumstances - Bussard ramjet to a thousand
tonnes of antimatter neatly tucked under your tiny scrotum, that takes
you anywhere interesting in real time. The 8.78 lightyear round trip
to Alpha Centuri will kill you dead as a medically sterilized
syringe. If you go slow, cosmic radiation cooks you dead as you age
to death. If you go fast, Doppler-shifted cosmic radiation fries you
like a rasher of bacon.
In addition, time slows down for things moving that fast to the point that at
something like 99.99 % of light speed, it only takes a little over six months
pilot time (not counting acceleration time) to go the 39 light year distance to
Zeta l and Zeta 2 Reticuli.
Hey stooopid, the investors at home age at the normal rate. Nobody
will put up any cash. Nobody travels anywhere in this universe in
real time unless there is wholly new and unanticipated physics
reducible to practice discovered.
Also, if one uses gravitational assist (the traveler doesn't provide the energy)
as we do on all our deep space probes, the increase in mass wouldn't matter
anyway. A black hole would be quite convenient.
Idiot. "If we could travel thousands of lightyears in a flash to
arrive at a black hole, we could use it to travel thousands of
lightyears the slow way." BTW, git, black holes are rather dirty with
ambient radiation. You had best also correct for things a like
Lense-Thirring frame dragging lest you end up in places we'd all like
to see you go.
Moving through walls
"But Stan, how do the laws of physics permit people to be pulled through walls
and windows without breaking them or the person?" I haven't the faintest idea.
When you have nothing to say, don't.
[snip more crap]
Limited realms
Remember that the closest-to-each-other pair of sun like stars, Zeta 1 and 2
Reticuli, are a billion years older than the sun. An important aspect of the
laws of physic is that they apply in limited realms.
General Relativity, being a covariant tensor theory, is
backgroundless. It is the whole (classical) universe contained within
in ten equations.
[snip more crap]
What new realms will be discovered in the next decade or in the next century?
New variations on old theme of the world of physics?
After 180 lines of great boredom we arrive at... nothing. *****
meter's big banana plug is de-inserted and wiped with a Povidone
iodine cleansing rag. Here folks, read something interesting,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/buffalo.htm
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
Remainder of poast left intact because it's droll.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: The laws of human physics and the laws of extraterrestrial physics! |
22 Aug 2003 06:54:32 PM |
|
|
Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote:
<snippage here and there>
The laws of physics by Stanton Freidman
I am sick and tired of people complaining that one or another law of physics
would have to be violated by flying saucers, and, therefore, since I am a
nuclear physicist, how can I say some UFOs are alien spacecraft?
By having some evidence to present vs. guessing? Failure
to do so is religion, not science.
There is a long list of such supposed violations: It would take too long to get
here from other star systems. It would take too much energy to get here from
other star systems. Right angle turns are impossible. High accelerations would
violate the laws of physics. People can't be taken through walls without
damaging the walls or the people. Etc. ad nauseum.
What we seem to be dealing with are claims by people who don't understand the
laws of physics, who have no comprehension that the feasibility of accomplishing
a particular objective is almost completely dependent on the engineering
assumptions made, and that much of the blind acceptance we give to today's
technology would have been totally rejected by other noisy negativists 100 or
more years ago.
No, that's turf defending (AKA politics).
Acceleration
...Dr. Stapp actually lived through deceleration of 43 Gs
(From over 600 mph to zero), for a fraction of a second
Right angle turns
Some have said that saucers making right angle turns violate the laws of
physics. The laws of physics say nothing about the possibility of making rapid
right angle turns. Our present jet and rocket technology, which work by carrying
along something thrown out the back end, is not capable of providing right angle
turns, because we cannot rapidly change the direction of the rearward thrust.
Note unmentioned connection between acceleration and "the
possibility of making rapid right angle turns". If you're
doing 600 mph and make a right angle turn, you just pulled
43 gees which may be "survivable" once (I note Dr. Stapp's
subsequent medical difficulties and the fact that nobody
else tried it went unmentioned), but repeatedly? I don't
think so.
What has thrust deflection tech (Harrier etc.) have to do
with right angle turn capability?
A magneto-aerodynamic system which could provide rapid changes of the direction
of electric and magnetic forces probably could provide right angle turns. More
likely there is a technique about which we know nothing.
What is a "magneto-aerodynamic system" supposed to mean?
Some kind of tech that interacts with Earth's feeble
geomagnetic field? Don't make me laugh.
Sonic booms
...If the air is electrically ionized (made to be a conducting
plasma) then there may NOT be an accompanying sonic boom.
Evidence for supposition?
Energy and time
I have been told that getting here from another solar system in a time shorter
than the average person's life span would take far too much energy and would
violate the laws of physics, or it would take thousands or millions of years.
The fact is that the feasibility of any space travel is based upon the
assumptions made.
As I noted in my "Challenge to SETI Specialists" (see my Web site at
www.vj-enterprises.com/sipage.html), a "scientific" calculation in 1941 oft he
required initial launch weight of a chemical rocket able to get a man to the
moon and back concluded it would be a million million tons.
Dr. Campbell was off by a factor of 300 Million! He made all the wrong
assumptions, such as single stage rockets, a limit of 1G acceleration, using a
retrorocket to slow down when approaching earth on the return, assuming much too
low an exhaust velocity, and assuming that the rocket would have to provide all
the energy.
Some progress has been made since 1941.
What was the launch weight of the Apollo vehicles again?
What has interplanetary travel economics (being
charitable about identifying Luna as a planet) to do with
interstellar travel economics?
We use cosmic freeloading such as the earth's rotation of 1000 mph when
launching to the east near the equator, the gravity field of the moon to pull in
the rocket, and the earth's atmosphere to slow us down on return. It was Dr.
Campbell's ignorance that was the problem, not the laws of physics.
Another misunderstanding of the laws of physics comes from people pointing out
that since one would have to approach the speed of light (670,000,000 mph) to go
to nearby solar systems, the amount of energy required would be humongus because
the mass of the rocket increases as one approaches the speed of light. However,
it only takes one year at 1G acceleration to get close to the speed of light.
If one uses nuclear fusion of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and helium-3 (light
helium one produces charged particles which can be directed by electric and
magnetic fields) then there is ten million times as much energy per article as
they can get in a chemical rocket. The particles are born that way and are not
accelerated to that energy.
You still can't carry enough fuel to get anywhere
interesting. BTW, how do you plan to neutralize the charge
on the exhaust? If you don't, you get no thrust after a
short while because it won't leave the nozzle.
In addition, time slows down for things moving that fast to the point that at
something like 99.99 % of light speed, it only takes a little over six months
pilot time (not counting acceleration time) to go the 39 light year distance to
Zeta l and Zeta 2 Reticuli.
What's the fuel weight/payload weight ratio?
Also, if one uses gravitational assist (the traveler doesn't provide the energy)
as we do on all our deep space probes, the increase in mass wouldn't matter
anyway. A black hole would be quite convenient.
If there were any in a convenient location. Are there?
Moving through walls
"But Stan, how do the laws of physics permit people to be pulled through walls
and windows without breaking them or the person?" I haven't the faintest idea. I
am sure that 150 years ago the idea of having information enter a closed room
and be reproduced to make pictures and sounds on TV and radio sets using
electricity, which also wasn't known at that time, would have been thought
absurd.
Persons are not EM waves. This isn't the Star Trek Universe.
New nanotechnology techniques are truly as extraordinary as the breakthroughs in
quantum mechanics, relativity, radioactivity, and solid state physics over the
past century or so. Does anybody really believe that the progress has stopped? I
certainly don't.
What's that got to do with the subject?
That we cannot either explain or duplicate what to us seems like anomalous
technology, doesn't mean a more advanced society didn't get there a long time
ago. It is our lack of understanding that provides the limits, not the laws of
physics.
Doesn't mean they did either.
Limited realms
Remember that the closest-to-each-other pair of sun like stars, Zeta 1 and 2
Reticuli, are a billion years older than the sun. An important aspect of the
laws of physic is that they apply in limited realms. Einstein's relativity
involving increase of mass and slowing down of time is only significant at
velocities near that of light, or in situations where the conditions are very
different from "normal"-for example, near very very dense black holes or neutron
stars.
*****. It's merely noticeable to the puny human
sensorium under those conditions, as opposed to being
blatantly obvious to instrumentation at shirtsleeve
velocities and densities.
Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, normally deal with the world of the very
small. In the biological sciences we find that a great variety of very new micro
scopes enable us to see the very small world. Nanotechnology and quantum dots
are part of that very small world.
So?
The myriad of applications for lasers, from the check-out counters, to CDs, to
very sophisticated analyses of materials, to the surgeon's special tools
frequently accomplishing what was thought to be impossible shoul dhelp us
recognize that violations of the laws of physic are not really very common.
None of the above are examples of "violations of the laws
of physics".
What new realms will be discovered in the next decade or in the next century?
New variations on old theme of the world of physics?
Yeah, just keep praying to the Space Brothers.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
