Writing off ‘conventional sources’ is exactly how great advances don’t happen. Must keep options available.
You do know that you don’t really need that much power to make this stuff work, right?
And diesel/combustion engines are just fine for that sort of thing. That’s how it’s done in fiction if it ain’t nuclear power.
And sending a ship into the Earth’s core and using nukes to make it rotate again is fine for that sort of thing, because it was done in fiction.
You probably misinterpreted my meaning.
What I meant was that normal fuel-burning engines can provide enough power for that sort of thing.
Hydraulics are relevant as well.
Also, “fiction”. You are talking about The Core.
No, no, really.
lol physics first bro. learn how diesel/gasoline engines generate and deliver power, then Learn what conservation of energy is. thwn you should understand, why I said what I said.
if you cant figure it out…then…idk ask some on who knows.
This bad boy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter
is powered by combustion engines.
Scale, nor power density/availability aren’t the problems.
Okay, though.
are you serious?
ill get to you later. you obviously dont understand how that machines work.
riddle me this. ia the hp of that engine relevant to what it can do? ill know if you are using google because there ia only one answer
My point is that combustion engines are fine for powering stuff like the artificial muscle material I mentioned, because of alternators/conversion systems.
That’s how generators/stuff like that play their role. It’s pretty simple.
That’s not something you can refute, because that’s how it’s done in large vehicles.
Just saying.
so you dont know why that crawler is a bad example…
you camt cite examples, then say im wrong when you don’t know why those machines work that way. the applications of the combustion engine wont work with mechas nor provide the necessary power to use these materials quickly and efficiently.
you still didn’t answer or refute my points at all. you sound like Edison, and I mean that in a bad way.
I shouldn’t have bothered talking.
One more thing to never bring up again.
You win; you’re ‘right’.
Good day, sir.
I know what you meant, but if you’re gonna make a claim about something having real-world applications, just saying it would because it worked in fiction is probably not what you want backing you up. That’s like saying we can blow up a planet by combining multiple small lasers into one, or we can use a coffee maker to power a car turned time machine, or anything else from the world of fiction that currently only works because it happened in fiction.
If you manage to get giant robots weighing who knows how many tons to be powered by current tech, it’s not because it happened in fiction, it’s because it was made to happen in reality. Big difference.
And yes, I referenced The Core. It’s a prime example of when even fiction can reach levels of stupid that you can’t even pretend to buy into any of it. You might want to try stepping back a bit from that edge with some of the shit you say.
Oh, now you’re trying to say that because current tech powers large vehicles, that automatically makes it capable of powering one limb of a gigantic robot many times larger? Is that because it happened in fiction too? You know what, forget what I said about the edge, we’re already too late. We’ll send your family our regards.
and just like that, you quit on the chance to learn…
I went back and watched the first 40 minutes of the first video to see what the holographic universe is actually about. From what I watched, it was actually a sound presentation of what quantum mechanics really means for us. Haha I admit when I saw the title “holographic universe” I really thought it was gonna be pseudoscience, but judging from the first 40 minutes, it’s really just a bunch of analogies so that people can understand the implications of QM.
Although I have to say, when I watched the video, I understood the sense of it because I already have some knowledge of QM. I’m an undergraduate physics major so I understand the sense of the video in a certain way. What if a non-physics major or a non-college-level person watched it? Or on the other hand what if a PhD with a focus on QM watched it? It’s very possible that different people have different understandings of the concepts used in the video, like “potentiality” or “reality” and such, so it’s very possible that they will understand the sense of the video in different ways. What I’m afraid of is that when some people watch the video, they might not actually “see” the quantum mechanics. They’ll just see a bunch of mystical connections, which might not be wholly accurate.
A particularly dangerous part of the video I watched was the explanation of “the Field”, which seems to refer to the quantum field of the “string” (most fundamental entity in string theory). The explanation is very vague, almost nonsensical, unless the viewer has a background on quantum field theory, or at the very least, the notion of an everywhere-permeating field. To add to that, the superstring field isn’t even something that’s completely fleshed out yet!
I think an easier way of presenting the superstring field would be to start with the different particles and how they interact (gravity, electromag, weak, and strong) as explained using forces, force fields, and potential energy fields (which is pretty much how class mech handles it), then move on to how interactions propagating through force fields can actually behave as quanta themselves (something you see in QM), then move on to how actual particles like electrons and quarks can actually be explained as propagations through fields in the same way the virtual particles are propagations through force fields (pretty much the basis of quantum field theory and the Standard Model).
Now the viewer should understand that there are a bunch of everywhere-permeating fields, each one corresponding to a certain particle (electron field, up quark field, etc). The final step would be to show how some fields can be explained as just different facets of a higher, overarching field, for example electricity and magnetism unified into electromag, and a more modern example, electromag and weak into electroweak (although only for certain energy levels). This hints to them that the different “fundamental” particles and interactions we see may actually be just different facets of one ultimate overarching field. String theory is one of the bodies of knowledge that’s dedicated to finding that one unified field, and basically what string theorists want to show is that the fundamental particle is an insanely small string, which can vibrate in certain ways dictated by a certain rule (having just one particle obeying just one rule explain the entire universe is every physicist’s wet dream). The consequences of the different vibrations of the string cascade down into the multiple particles and interactions we observe today. The superstring field is just the field corresponding to this fundamental string.
The holographic universe is a pretty good analogy, actually, but I didn’t really watch too much of the video to see if there are faults in the analogy that might lead someone to a conclusion about reality that’s different from conclusions in QM.
What I do know is that QM is still part of science, which is limited by having to observe things to actually study them. I don’t think you can use science to prove/disprove the existence of something outside spacetime, like a God, maybe, because you simply can’t observe anything outside spacetime. Neither can you scientifically predict the behavior of such things. So Zarga, I’m kinda iffy about the last part of your post, about reality and the hologram and God, assuming the God you’re talking about is the God I think you’re talking about.
Let’s try going back to science involving the actual universe, shall we?
http://news.yahoo.com/earth-survived-near-miss-2012-solar-storm-nasa-222404357.html
Better luck next time, Sun. On behalf of Earth, suck it!
And what Universe is that? What is the actual Universe? Can you even define it? The Universe really is just a hologram. Reality is made out of nothing. We are all immaterial.
The one I’m sitting in.
The one I’m sitting in.
The universe is what I’m currently sitting in.
Can you go fuck yourself out of the universe I’m sitting in now?
Hearing that coming from you is almost like a compliment. Didn’t you have me on ignore? Compliment me again by putting me back on there.
A question for science-y folks able to answer.
I sometimes read about the shape of the universe as it relates to 3D space. My understanding is that the universe is very likely flat, though other shape types were theorized, including round and negative curve.
Round, despite tough to picture, seems straightforward enough: you go in a straight line and eventually return to your starting point.
But I never understood this negative curvature thing. Does that mean space would like fold into itself or something?
Didnt have time to watch those videos, but I read on the holographic universe topic previously. My take was that it was an interesting concept and lends itself to some interesting thought experiments. The concept also readily lends itself to analogies with everyday occurrences. Some simple concepts extrapolated from the idea of a holographic universe I find tightly linked with my personal philosophy on life, while others from the same idea I find totally abhorrent. Interesting, though I prob wouldnt categorize as science. The science behind holography itself is crazy enough.