Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by buoy

  1. boost_bus180 that was a great read. Thanks!


    Yes taking out the nuke from the equation could be a rather naive rule to enforce which would normally not properly reflect the reality of war - but even if it were true, in the sprit of forum discussion and to get the cogs of peoples minds to tick over, these things can spark thinking processes that (I'm hoping) could prove to be very interesting to read. Otherwise, I think we all know that there would be little to debate since the "cold" nature of the nuclear standoff creates very few options for actual conflict. An irony at the best of times.


    However I must reflect on the absurd nature of the topic at hand (if one can look past it) and then pose the question: is a no-nuke scenario really so far fetched if you consider the 2-sides scenario? For example, if we can assume that a nuclear strike would mean "mutually assured destruction" since using any nuke from one side to the other would result in a "full scale retalitory strike" which was the whole point of the "cold" war in the 60s 70s and 80s one would feel then that the nuclear option would be the very last option on the table and that one would exercise all conventional means to engage the enemy across all fronts (unless you consider nukes to be a first strike weapon in which case we can just close the thread after 1 paragraph - missiles kill the human race, birds and the bees start off new life colonization initiative).


    Thus, if that mentality is followed by all parties involved then the reasoning woudl be that using nukes is such a drastic measure as to be staved off until the last moment and, with so many variables from the chain of command to individual impairment of launch capabilities one would even guess as to whether leaving the nuclear option until later would also mean the actual ability to launch a coordinated strike also diminishes due to impairment from the conventional war being fought preceding that moment.


    The more I think about it, the more I believe that nuclear is a no-win situation:

    Some people describe this as being in a situation similar to someone having a gun. If the other person has a gun, you both point it to each other but nobody shoots and a dialogue opens up. However, if one person has a gun and the other doesn't, a dialogue would usually be restricted to a series of orders given by the person with the gun. A conventional army may be considered the equivalent of a knuckle buster perhaps? Something that isn't lethal straight off the bat and requires a lot of effort and repeated strikes to deal significant damage?


    Now, neither side would engage in a fist fight since both of them are holding guns to each other (read: the nuclear deterrant) but if both sides holstered their guns you'd very quickly have a fist fight on your hands (read: conventional warfare).


    But I don't think that is a completely realistic analogy - as if one person holsters their gun, the other person can shoot them with little consequence to themselves. If I were to create an analogy to the nuclear arms situation I would firstly place the 2 people in a very small room, perhpas 4m x 4m. Then, consider for a moment that the weapons they were holding were not simply guns but perhaps bazookas or panzerfaust... AND they had knuckle-busters. Now, if they both wanted to get out of this sorry situation the panzerfaust has dire consequences for both sides even if only one fires (more realistic imho) and they'd probably engage in a knuckle busting fight because the bazooka is just going to spell doom for both of them.





    The other point this raises is, perhaps, whether having a conventional army is required at all if you have nuclear weapons as a deterrant?





    I scoured a few other forums where a similar debate is playing out and, just to add some wood to the fire I'm going to post a few of the more eloquent quotes below:


    three words:No energy independence
    Air force and navy are irrelevant if we're talking about invading first world nations. ICBMs can reach any city in the US, and we have no way to stop it short of a preemptive strike on all missile silos. The ICBMs can be armed with regular bombs, thus not violating the nuke rule.
    They've been fighting the Taliban for 7 years AND THE TALIBAN IS WINNING. Any other questions?


    Blowing Rock Master wrote:

    The biggest exporter of oil to the US is Canada. The third biggest is Mexico. It wouldn't take much effort for the US to overrun their oil fields should they attack us. At that point the US would have enough oil to feed the American military.



    Yes, it would most definitely take "much effort". Particularly when Canada and Mexico would have the military support of the rest of the planet.


    But that point is moot. You don't need to stop them from taking over the oil fields. You merely need to prevent them from getting the oil out of it or converting it to something useful. A few well placed bombs or missiles in the fields (and especially in refineries) will do the trick. Look at what happened when one hurricane (Katrina) went through the Carribean. Refineries are big fat soft targets.


    What a bunch of nationalistic blind brain washed kids.I am amazed to see young people as myself are looking at a war as being so easy.

    Since I had the opportunity to receive a multi- international education I have come to understand a DIFFERENT history than what some of you may learn in USA.

    First point.

    In the 2nd WW, USA itself on the same continent with Germany would have been destroyed by the German army in matter of months(I am not a fan of germany , I am just using my common sense)- ask any real historian. USA came in when everybody was tired and out of resources. Its like a regular Joe coming in the 12 round of a heavyweight boxing fight, after the two knock eachother out, clears the ring from the bodyes and declares himself the victor.

    2nd point

    The rest of the world attacking suddenly USA, USA (or any other country) would surrender within 1 week, to avoid a population massacre. Modern warfare includes biological weapons, long range nukes, and desinformation technologioes.

    3rd and 4th point

    USA would collapse in a war crisis, because its too damn dependednt on gas, everything is so spreaded,there is no functional and advanced public transportation as railroads,basically the economy would collapse when misiles would hit the oil rafineries,and in the winter time the north would starve to death.

    Things are not as smooth as we may think they are. Look at the slow slughish 9/11 or new orleans response coming from the defense department. US autorities couldn t deal with a flood in New Orleans..........for god sake...how are they going to deal with nukes, planes and people coming suddlenly from everywhere.

    In the end- a lesson that history is always teaching us:


    Every great empire/power has its end at one point in time.-unfortunately


    China launches a ICBM at the U.S., here's the next step: the U.S. decimates Beijing from Okinawa.



    Then Russia, Israel, the UK decimate and every other nation on the planet with ICBMs proceed to decimate every US oil refinery.



    Naval superiority cannot be underestimated,



    First of all, are you so stupid you don't even know how to express the point you wanted to make? You meant to say that it cannot be OVERestimated, not UNDERestimated.


    And you know what? It CAN be overestimated. Because of those ships don't have fuel to run on or if the planes the aircraft carriers don't have fuel to fly then they are of no use to anyone


    and the U.S. is miles ahead of the rest of the world in this regard.



    The US is NOT miles ahead of the rest of the world in this regard. We are not longer even METERS ahead of the rest of the world in this regard. The technology behind even the most advanced US fighters and subs is commonplace within the world now. Case in point: The Joint Strike Fighter.


    You people cannot possibly be this stupid. The United States Military a few years ago changed the emphasis from being able to fight wars on two fronts to being able to fight wars on ONE front. How on earth do you think they can possibly fight a war on 23 different fronts?


    Listen up. You are ignorant of the subject at hand. The United States Military is a shadow of what it once was. We cannot even win a war in f***ing IRAQ for Christ's sake.


    But probably the funniest and most insightful comment was this one:


    Easy, we get our asses handed to us on a stick unless we take Canada out of the "rest of the world". Even then we wouldn't last 6 months.


    We fire up all the jets, ships, etc, and after about 45 days of bombing the sh*t out of stuff we run out of fuel. Russia and China take our overseas resources in a cakewalk, then move on Alaska and Hawaii. Commonwealths declare themselves independent now that they don't have to pay back anything.


    Meanwhile back at the home front gas is $25 a gallon. China starts dumping dollars and our highly leveraged economy collapses. The end of worlders commence to hording and shoot anyone that steps inside rifle range, all the right wing nut bags commence playing GI Joe forming fifedoms in every nook and cranny. In 18-24 months we're a third world country with no functioning government and we splinter into a bunch of Balkanized regions and the country as it stands ceases to exist without a single foreign troop landing on the lower 48.


    Read more: http://www.letsrun.c...0#ixzz2fdNo0ev0

  2. There has been a lot of talk about the US striking Syria... and then the whole fiasco about Russia bringing in their "Carrier Killer" fleet to deal with the US Carrier group(s) in the vicinity. Then many forums around the world erupted with who would win - Carrier vs Carrier Killing Frigates and / or Carrier Group vs Submarines? What gives?


    ... and then there was this video that really set the tone...


    So I just thought after reading a whole bunch of complete and utter nonsense on other forums, why not just take this all the way. You know you want to:






    The Rules: No Nukes. Why? Because if nukes are used, everyone loses... and we can't have that... and we really want a winner here.


    What to take into account:


    MILITARY- AIR/SEA and LAND firepower. How advanced? How numerous? How spread out? How much can they defend? How effective are they against their counterparts. What submarines you using? What sattelites / surveillance / terrorist groups you running with?


    HISTORY- You remember World War 2 right? How many countries vs how many countries? Who jumped in? Does that gleam anything in todays conflict?


    RESOURCES- You got planes? Check. You got fuel to put in those planes? You got access to oil fields? Can your enemies torch those oil fields making it hard to get to the oil? Can you feed your citizens? Where are your factories? Are they off-shore? Do you have any that can build shit?


    POPULATION- How many fighting ready people do you have? How many people are too old / too young / too skinny / to incredibly obese to fight?


    BIOLOGICAL WARFARE: I know nukes are ruled out but not too sure on this one. Include it if you have a seethingly brilliant idea.


    ELECTRONIC WARFARE - Who is hacking who? Internet attacks - is that even a "thing" at this stage? Do we use this to gather intelligence about the enemy? etc


    And finally, STRATEGY.


    Exactly what series of events unfold. Who attacks what? What gets attacked? What strategic points of interest need to be maintained. OH NO SOMEBODY launched an ICBM. But we said no nukes right? That's right.... no nukes... but those ICBMs can use conventional warheads right?

  3. Aah ok no prob. The only interesting thing to look out for in the budget / bang for buck arena in the next 6 months is AMDs Steamroller. It won't beat Haswell, but if it can get close to Sandy Bridge IPC...... with 8 actual cores and 5Ghz overclock potential? That is going to be one hell of a budget build!

  4. Wait... you bought a Z77 motherboard.............. and you bought a 3770 with no 'K'?


    O_o hmmmmm... are you cerain you won't overclock?



    PS: pryo......................... if you can hold off another 6 months and get the next Haswells you will have a selection of 6, 8 and 10 core products.


    Leave the 4 cores behind :) can you wait? If you have a need for speed lust perhaps an SSD for the time being may quench it if you don't have one already.


    (sorry... I like big fonts and I cannot lie).



    Hokay. Looks like the tables have really turned in the last 24 hours... with Sony delivering what may go down in history as the biggest flip-da-script in the modern era of video games since the original PlayStation took the legs from under top-dog Nintendo back in the 90s.


    In a vicious twist of placid conservativeness, Sony effectively handed Microsoft it's ass by doing........................ absolutely..... f**king.... nothing.


    Yep. That's right. By simply STAYING THE SAME and allowing people to CONTINUE to do all the shit they used to do like, ohhh I dunno.... sharing games they bought with each other, focusing on.... geez.... GAMING. Not selling what is now perceived and spun by the press as a 24-hour surveillance camera in the lounge room the NSA could use to invade people's privacy (It can't really, but I still have a doubt since I believe in the ingenuity of the human mind so.... never say never)... Sony just bitch-slapped Microsoft all the way home and back again.... a hobbit's tale style.



    First... the tea-bagging


    Then... the dickslap








    Reaction shots:






    What say you... yeee of ultimate gaming-hood and online connoisseur?

  6. The best one to get at the moment is the Tronsmart T428 quad core CPU, quad core GPU... almost as quick as the Galaxy S III. It's fairly new so there aren't any proper youtube vids of this besides just showing the exterior of the device.


    Another good one is the MK908. I have a vid of that one here - it's also a quad core cpu, quad core gpu:




    What I notice is that the quad core sticks have the feel of a desktop (almost) as the youtube reviewer mentions.... except of course it is in a tablet/android UI. But for speed it is nearly on par with a mid-range desktop. In other words it's snappy.


    Everything pretty much runs Jelly Bean 4.1 also. What I've just done recently is use DLNA. I have an older plasma that doesn't have any DLNA capability - but after plugging in one of these units the TV basically becomes DLNA compliant so I can stream movies from my home server to the TV... using my mobile phone.



    The bear is at the gates of AAPL... and it is gnawing at its stock.



    Peter Misek, Jefferies & Co.: Reiterates a Hold rating on the shares, and a $420 price target. “iPhone channel inventory increased by 1M to 11.6M

    and iPad by 1.4M to 4.8M (almost all iPad mini). We estimate the channel fill helped revenues by ~$1B and EPS by ~$0.35. iPhone sell-through decelerated from 26% in CQ4 to 12% in CQ1. China growth decelerated from 67% in CQ4 to 8% in CQ1 (+18% on sell-through). We think China will continue to be weak until a TD-SCDMA iPhone 5S launches at China Mobile [...] Mgmt comments about Fall and 2014 product launches implies no or limited launches beforehand. We cut our CQ3 estimates based on later launches for the iPhone 5S, low-cost iPhone, iPad 5, and iPad mini 2 and we expect GM pressure to continue [...] the new product category implies iWatch or iTV or both. 2) Screen commentary suggests Apple has smartly reversed course on 5? screens. We think the single biggest determinant for the stock over the next 6-12 months will be the timing of the iPhone 6. We see a June 2014 launch as most likely though Apple is trying to bring it forward.” Misek cut his fiscal ’13 estimates to $170.8 billion in revenue and $38.58 per share in net profit, down from $173.6 billion and $38.86.


    Stuart Jeffrey, Nomura Equity Research: Reiterates a Neutral rating on the shares, and cuts his price target to $420 from $490. “Falling ASPs, gross margins and market share might be a product-cycle issue, but it seems unlikely to us. Rising demand for iPhone 4 and lower storage versions all point to saturation of high end – at least for 4” screens – and point to further ASP and gross margin weakness. An evolutionary iPhone 5S will likely struggle to change this dynamic, while a mid-range iPhone could further pressure gross margins and ASPs. Further, low point in 2013 EPS is 17% below the 2012 trough, further suggesting that falling EPS is more than just a mid-cycle product issue.” Jeffrey cut his fiscal ’13 estimates to $171.7 billion and $39.51 per share from a prior $182.8 billion and $45.02 per share.


    Glen Yeung, Citigroup: Reiterates a Neutral rating, and cuts his price target to $430 from $480. “While bulls will laud Apple’s substantial buyback increase, we note that its impact to EPS is more than nullified by Apple’s below-consensus guidance. With capital allocation no longer a future catalyst, investor attention will likely revert back to fundamentals. Here we remain concerned about Apple share, noting that loss is clearly evident in F3Q13(Jun) guidance. Meanwhile, with iPhone mix already negatively impacting GM, our concerns about Apple’s longer-term gross margin sustainability are supported. When then factoring in a relatively weak result from China (another area of

    concern for us), and the likelihood that iPhone5S is delayed, and we think the bear case outweighs the bull case. Although it is fair to say much has been built into the shares, in our view, we found little from Apple’s results to warrant buying the shares.” Yeung cut his fiscal ’13 outlook to $165.5 billion in revenue and $37.48 per share in profit from a prior $171.6 billion and $41.49 per share.


    Will Power, R.W. Baird: Reiterates a Neutral rating, and cuts his price target to $438 from $465. “We applaud the long-awaited buyback and dividend increase, but remain concerned with increasing competitive pressures and the lack of a near-term product catalyst. In addition, company comments suggested that its next products might not launch until this fall, which could also create a challenging September quarter.” Power cut his fiscal ’13 view to $167.8 billion in revenue and $37.84 per share in profit from a prior $170.3 billion and $40.37.

  8. There are so many things we should have changed in this world but they are the way they are.


    For example, guinea pigs are neither pigs... nor are they from guinea. Lead pencils no longer have lead in them. We still use archaic icons like an alarm clock and an old 1950s style phone to represent digital devices that do the same thing. One day very soon, a child will look at that picture of an analog clock with princess leia ears and wonder what it all means.


    but let us digress................ at least we can argue over the nuances of phones lol.

  9. It is a great looking phone... but for me it does not compare to the 2 that stand out form the rest: LGs Optimus 4x HD / Optimus G......................... and the up and coming Asus PadPhone. Those look just gorgeous........... the ultimate phone in my mind has no extra overt roundness or bevels or wierd corners - it is a rectangle with a nice piece of glass completely covering one end..... with a nice chromic outline... and the screen inset should be symmetrical so no matter which way you hold it the screen is in the middle (bzzzzt, sorry GS-III). This is why I like the 4x HD - it's just mesmerizing to look at. So nice to hold, use etc. Best looking phone I've ever seen (again, my personal opinion). Previous to that, a "mockup" version of what the Galaxy S3 could have looked like was my favourite phone. That never materialized lol. Also the new mockup of the Surface Phone is hot. They all have what I find awesome: Glass to the edges and symmetrical screens inset... super basic design.

  10. yeah... looks like it. Complete fruity loop. As I was reading I was refuting each of his outlandish statements as I read them. Then I stopped because I had already refuted such a large number as to be pointless to continue refuting claims, but I read on a little more just out of pure blind curiosity.


    I can understand, if one does not have the internet and is child-like in their understanding of things YET good at certain other things like perhaps pure math and basic scientific observation theory that one could conceivably literally *think* themselves into this messy hole he's dug for himself. Unfortunate.


    I shall, just for the sake of it, refute some of the things he says just to give you an illustration of how far off he is.


    The Moon is as old as the Earth and it has definitely been orbiting the Earth almost right from the start, so it can't be a captured asteroid but although it's made of the same 'stuff' as the Earth, it only contains carefully selected bits of that stuff.


    Ok. Here's a good example of how "some" information can be worse than "no" information. He has probably read of the geological make-up of the moon - by "carefully selected bits" he means only the lighter elements. "Definitely been orbiting the earth almost right from the start" I'm not sure where he gets that from... perhaps pure lunacy, but anyway.


    Here is the bit he is missing: An asteroid HIT the earth a long time ago. Actually when we say the word "asteroid" we tend to thing of large wierd-shaped rocks floating in space. Well, firstly I'm talking about a celestial body thousands of kilometers across, so I'm not talking about something as small as, say, the one that killed the dinosaurs. I'm talking about one that is, ohh gosh, something that deforms the entire surface of the planet and rips off a massive chunk of it and exposes the mantle and core and for the next million years you can't tell that it's even a planet anymore. Yeah - THAT kind of impact. Imagine if the moon were to hit the earth now........ yeah....... that kind of "big".


    So what happened was, very very early on, definitely after the earth had achieved hydrostatic equilibrium (heavier stuff at the bottom, lighter stuff at the top) this "hit" smashed in to the earth. It lifted up a lot of the lighter elements which were flung off into outerspace or into orbit. The heavier elements, however, were pulled back by their own gravity of the earth's remnants and re-formed the planet and, through the forces of hydrostatic equilibrium again turning it into a sphere over millions of years it's back to being round - BUT the ejecta, the lighter elements perhaps formed a ring around the earth for a while and/or eventually (as we now see) coalesqued into another celestial body, the moon. From orbital calculations, the moon used to be very close to the earth and over billions of years has slowly spun its way outward to where it is now.


    THAT is why the moon is made up of lighter elements. This guy just doesn't get it. He's a crackpot. The first paragraph of his website says so too. :)

  11. Well, astronomers have found asteroids the size of half a football field which are basically made of pure platinum. When the previous star went supernova and ejected the elements, all the elements were arranged in descending order. You had uranium right at the core and helium on the outside. Then it goes boom and all this stuff just flies apart... and when they coalesque around various points in orbit around the new sun they may crash into each other and break apart... but these newly formed celestial bodies sometimes reach hydrostatic equilibrium and sort out all the elements for us in nice layers... then they get broken apart and that's what we got between mars and jupiter.... a huge asteroid belt. Some asteroids are pure gold. Others pure diamond. Even others are made of pure platinum... and they are just floating out there :lol:


    There is only 18 tons of platinum that is estimated to exist on earth in total! That stuff is crazy for certain things........... and we got an asteroid the size of half a football field floating out there. Yeah I think these billionaires minds are ticking over. I think you're right! :)


    this is why its madness that we are wasting our natural resources here on such trivial crap. I know at the moment its all necessary for life (our life as we know it) but one day future generations are gonna wonder wtf we were thinking burning all our fossil fuels at f**k all efficiency, rare earth materials for iphones, uranium for bombs and power plants etc when it could have been used to produce parts and fuel for use in space travel/terra forming etc. Mining other bodies within our own solar system may be our only Savior in the short term but I sure hope we have enough materials left on earth to manufacture the tech required for such a task when the time comes.


    I know what you're saying... I have felt that way for a very long time myself but I've since changed my tune and I'll try and illustrate how and why:


    My son is six months old now. For dinner this is what happens: My wife cuts around a 1.5m by 70cm sheet of plastic and lays it on the floor. We then put his feeding chair on that. We then feed him an array of food that my wife has meticulously boiled and fruits she has peeled. Peeled avocado, pumpkin, broccoli etc, etc. We also have pumpkin puree, avocado puree etc. He has no teeth yet but according to "baby led weaning" this is the best way to introduce solids to kids. At the end of feeding time which is roughly 15-20 mins, he's put many of these foods in his mouth, tried chewing and most of it has ended up on the floor. In other words, he doesn't really eat these foods, he just tries to to get his hand/eye coordination going. The thing that really fills him up (still) is baby formula and some of the puree.


    Now if you can abstract this situation and look at it from a resource standpoint this is a terrible waste of resources. How many plants, how much electricity, how much unused product is there? A lot! Let's be honest. This is a waste of food......... but......... BUT........ we don't see it as a long term thing. This is a means to an end. This guy isn't going to be doing this six months down the road. It's helping him understand. Helping his stomach develop the right bacteria. Helping his brain figure out co-ordination with his eyes and hands. Helping his nose recognise the smell of food etc.


    In other words, we see this waste of resources as a limited but necessary period where things are done for benefits later down the line.


    Now if we bring that "context" and overlay it with society's resource use on a global scale it describes my new way of looking at how we are using the earth's resources.


    We are using them wastefully now but we are on a growth spurt. We are learning stuff exponentially. This is not how we will be six decades down the line. We are using this period to grow. The established technologies on primitive "environmentally unfriendly" resources such as fossil fuels allows us to progress technologically and economically (again, prosperity is tied with innovation) and we are hoping that as our technology and understanding progresses we will be able to wean ourselves off these temporary damaging resources and into sustainable ones.


    So instead of the term "baby led weaning" I would borrow that term and perhaps call it "technology led resource weaning" --- meaning that we are using technology to lead us out of being so resource dependent on these other unsustainable resources.


    I think it is also interesting to point out that, given that we have only a very small first world and that 3 billion people live as if they were in the stone age, our environmental impact so far has been limited. It is unfair, but it's been limited. We've only had a billion people as of very recently being resource hogs. That means that this "weaning" period is mitigated. I don't know how it would have panned out but if everyone on earth industrialized at the same time equally would we have bottle-necked earlier? Or would we have progressed much faster?


    Who knows... the point is this stage is temporary. It is, without a doubt temporary as if we don't switch eventually we will just run out of this stuff. There are only so much fossil fuels on this planet.

  12. I think the moon is great. It's close enough for us to do some great stuff. It has basically no atmosphere (but as -cj pointed out it has a very tiny tiny atmosphere a trillionth of that compared to earths) which is advantageous for 1. direct sunlight for energy harvesting, 2. no corrosion 3. no atmospheric resistance for launching, 4. the low gravity is much easier to break away from so expending fuel would be so much less.... it has reserves of water in the poles and the moon surface raw materials can produce concrete TWICE as strong as that of earths (for some reason, just saw it in the above youtube vid I attached earlier).


    it's just so convenient and awesome. it also has a dark side which completely masks out radio chatter from earth......

  13. Buoy. I would love to get in your mind after you've smoked a cone. I swear it be like a f**kibg Mexican entering America type scenario

    lol. I don't think it's very interesting in there. Might look like a lot of smoke and mirrors........



    I didn't even know the was water on the moon, why don't we plant some trees etc? bad climate?

    That would probably be a key thing for a moon base. Lots of trees and vegetation but it would be housed in a controlled environment inside an enclosure where atmosphere, temperature and pressure can be controlled and use the water reserves on the moon to irrigate. I have no idea how trees would go being planted in moon dust. I am guessing it would be similar to planting hydroponics - so planting shoots in sand - they'd still require nutrients and I'm guessing we'd have to bring that along :pika:


  14. Very interesting! However I think they are missing something. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light so as the frequency of incoming light shortens (gets faster / closer together), our perception of its frequency is based on a much shorter / slower space / time.


    If you look out the side and see a stretched universe and stars are long lines instead of discreet points in your field of view then that must mean that incoming light ALSO IS STRETCHED ----------- so light waves that may now have a very short wavelength APPEAR to have a longer stretched out wavelength (ie "normal wavelength") by the time it reaches your eye...... since you are travelling so fast, your ships length is very short, thus your eyeball is not a sphere it's perhaps more akin to a squished ellipse, so this ultra short light wave that would normally be an x-ray to an observer is actually seen by you as longer wave light in the visible spectrum.


    I think it just evens itself out and we still see what we see. Perhaps we do see some red shift behind and blue shift in front or not... but the light spectrum's shift must be tempered with the fact that time slows down as you approach the speed of light.

  15. If there's no gravity.. Does space even have G force?

    Yes. Space is a fabric - it's not nothing. A simple test can reveal this to us: Let's say you are in a park and you start spinning on the spot. You feel your arms moving out because of the centrifugal force. Now for the sake of the argument let's get rid of the park. In fact, let's get rid of the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars... the galaxy and all other galaxys. Let's get rid of everything around you so that nothing else exists except you.


    Are your arms still pulling outward? The answer would be yes.......... and you need to ask yourself: If my arms are pulling outwards that means that I'm spinning.


    You are spinning in relation to what?


    You are spinning in relation to space itself.

  16. Gentlemen! XBMC is now available as a 1-click .apk for Android. Those of you who have a Mini-PC like a UG802 or MK802 will be able to enjoy a true HTPC experience software-wise. Requires MX Player but it can be installed as your launcher over Android and it apparently has been getting some good reviews.



    WARNING: Brunette wiht scarf is teh hot...




    More hysteria http://www.xbmcandroid.com/2013/01/17/introducing-the-first-end-user-friendly-release-of-xbmc-for-android-must-have/

  17. So if you're travelling at light time/speed, it would be instant. Where i get bogged down is, how will that look to an outside observer. According to this outside observer (using the above examples), would you appear to take 47 billion earth years to arrive at the mit even though to the person in the ship it's instantaneous? Most theories say yes, but most humans can't comprehend life without time.

    Looking at it another way, If travelling at light speed the ships (UTC calibrated time) would read the same time from when you entered light speed as it would when you end up in the mit. However, to the outside (immortal) observer by the time you reach the mit it's 47 billion years in the future. Who's clock is right?

    I think another good way of looking at the speed of light "limit" is like a super sleuth. You never see him/meet him in person.... but afterwards when you examine the clues and evidence around you you could tell that he was here - but try as you may you never meet him face to face!


    What I mean is, if you had a spaceship with gollups of thrust and decided tomorrow you want to go to the other side of the milky way, you jump in the spaceship, keep accelerating - you just get faster and faster and faster and faster...... then you slow down as you get to the other side. have a space picnic enjoying the view or whatever... do the whole thing in reverse to come back to earth just in time for dinner. But of course, everyone on earth you know is gone and our species has either died away or evolved into some other thing... you missed the boat. You just jumped into your spaceship and took off and didn't feel a thing, didn't feel any time dilation, nothing! The super sleuth strikes again! You had no idea time dilation was happening cos you never experience it. Ever. It's always happening to someone else.... :)


    CAVEAT: There is a way to tell that there is time dilation happening to stuff around you, however. These things aren't something I tackle every day so I keep forgetting pieces of the big picture :lol: but if you are going through a massive time dilation you would see the universe 1. in fast-forward and 2. things would be stretched in the direction you were travelling. Points of light like stars would appear more like lines.... and you'd see blue in the front and red in the rear..... I hate to admit it. I always thought these shots from star trek were a load of bullshit but they actually have some science behind it (not the warp drive, just what you'd see when you are going that fast)........




    [Just an aside: If you are going at "Warp" like the science fiction literature says, it gets around time dilation because you are in a part of space that is normal. OK so if that's the case then why illustrate time dilation effects if there IS NO TIME DILATION :rolleyes: ... silly billys! Those stars aren't stretched because of motion blur, those stars are supposedly stretched because the enterprise, if massive time dilation is occuring, is seeing a stretched-out version of the universe (and if a third party observed the enterprise it would look like this) So that's the crazy thing about Star Trek. They do this "warp" thing which supposedly creates a singularity type thing in front and an opposite thing behind and they basically just mvoe the goal posts space/time with them inbetween yet they still show time dilated redshift/blueshift stars wizzing past. Velly intelesting].




    So, in a way, the universe doesn't have a speed limit. It has space/time zones that move time and space at different speeds but it doesn't stop YOU from moving freely in and out of them at your whim. You could jump in a space ship and, with enough power and thrust, you could go anywhere you want in very short amounts of time (in relation to you). You'd only realize there was a massive time discrepancy later on when you came back to the same area of space-time.