A discussion I seen this week.

The question is "Say you had a string 2 light years long, the ends were the same distance apart, and it was perfectly taut. Now if you were to pull one end of the string, would the other end immediately move?

Discount the fact that the string would stretch a over such a long distance. This is a perfect string that is essentially one big molecule and the bonds are incapable of stretching.

Given that it's unrealistic, but what do you think?"

What do I think about what? Will it move on the far side ~at the same time~?

Here is my attempt at answering a impossible senerio, my guess is that I have an impossible answer.

Im sure I have seen this question before in one form or another. This question is wrongfully assuming that the speed of light has anything to do with it, or for that matter your breaking the speed of light in any way shape or form. The truth is the speed of light has nothing to do with it other than for observation purposes. So if you looked at the far end through a telescope heh, of course it wouldnt appear to move, thats because your looking at how the string was in the past. Its the same principle as the observation of galaxies.

Empty space is made up of Dark Matter, Dark energy ect. and were not exactly sure what it is but lets just simplify and say that space is made up of an infinite number of quarks. One thing is for sure information has to travel through these quarks to get anywhere without them light would not go anywhere as it has no path to travel. So think of the quarks as a fiber optic cable, this particular cable has a governed speed limit associated with it that is the observable speed of light. It just cant conduct information faster than that, so we think. If it could transmit data faster or more efficiantly the speed of light would be a different figure.

With that in mind, since the string has already established its path and rests within these quarks, given the no stretch clause, information is instant. The idea being, you on the pulling end cant observe it unless of course you were to have the string like a pully system in which the end is at the begining. The conflict of understanding is where you make the mistake of assuming that matter is moving at superluminal speeds and its really not, its moving as fast as your tugging on it. It doesnt matter how long or how far apart the magical string is, if it cannot stretch (fixed geometry) whatsoever then your answer is as simple as the question is ...

Anyway, lets take it a bit further now and say the string can strectch, very little but it can stretch. Now without a doubt your going to see a delay in reaction of years, in the case of a pully system double that. Why so? Because now the object has to re-establish or repath itself through quark space of which if you recall there is a goverend transfer rate this can happen regardless of the type of information and a subsequent chain reaction if you will. (Atomic and thus macro Information is by nature all wavelike) How fast or how big the delay depends entirely on your allowable flux and its difficult to explain it more than that. You may want a quick answer of does it take 2 years then or in the case of a pully system 4 years then? The answer is not that simple. Because now were straying away from the simple no stretch senerio and bringing in quantum mechanics all that good stuff and that takes a whole lot more into the theoretical equation, and it will probably be just that a complicated equation with a not so simple answer of how long it takes. Personally Im not willing to think anymore of it but what I would like now to explore is what the original hypothetical question should have been given the nature of the question and its this.

Einstein was puzzled with a great distance instant reaction or not senerio himself. Whether he came up with it or not I dont know, if not someone would have eventually. This particular senerio deals with 2 like particles that co-exsist in atomic nature and when one rotates left the other has to have an equal an opposite reaction and rotate right(think polar or magnetic for reference). It is a proven observable law of physics and the exact particles were talking about eludes me right now but I do remember this much. The distance between these particles does not affect the reaction time. Now if this is true said Einstein, what happens if you were to take one particle ~2 light years away and rotate it, would the one on Earth rotate at the ~same time~, would it rotate at all even? The laws of physics says it definatly has to. This puzzled all the scientists back in the day and one of them name Newton whom was pretty well known and well respected, came up with a theory based soley to correct this problem which stated that the Universe and all matter in it is connected one and whole, allowing such a instant reaction to take place. No one bought it and he was ridiculed to this day and rightly so, its a rediculous concept to even the most amature of physists.

But the question is when do the laws of physics break? At what distance? Do they really? The truth could be that this particular example is impossible to prove one way or the other. You cannot percieve the reaction straight out from one point of reference. What you would have to do it take an Atomic clock with you on your trip 2 light years away with the idea that your going to substract the time discrepency with the one on Earth due to your high speed travel there. Not forgeting the actual experiment here, have a planned exact set time(not forgeting to account for Earth time and substract/add) in which the guy on Earth knows your going to rotate it and record the observation. So in a nutshell the experiment is at the [same moment of ~time] at 2 references, does the other particle rotate on schedual or not? Does it like we asked before, rotate at all? If it doesnt rotate then we broke the laws of physics somewhere along the line and the question is again at what distance do they break? One thing is for sure if the particle on Earth does feel a bond somehow with the particle 2 light years away and attempts to transmit information it will be governed by the speed of light(Perhaps Speed of Gravity) and should take 2 years.

July 1 2003

Weight in space

An object in space whether here on Earths surface or in deep space, assumes a weight according to the total gravity exerted on it. So what happens in deep space when there are very little celestial bodies in the area?
The weight of an object is extremely minimal, the only force exerted on it are the nearest galaxies. Lets ignore for the moment Dark matter and Dark energy that are supposedly out there surrounding everything as well and in theory would add assumed weight to any object in deep space due to its gravity.

Taking a thick metal wire hundreds of miles long, what is the force needed to taught the wire and hold it as compared to the force needed near a planet? As expected the force needed is greatly reduced and almost appearing as in suspended animation.

What is the spacecraft in space that is pulling this wire, pushing against in order to taught it? Fundemental matter, perhaps quarks and well bring in for a moment the Dark Matter/Energy. Without it, the spacecraft wouldnt go anywhere they would be helplessly floating in space unable to exert a force in order to travel.

With that known, is the available gravity/thrusting force of the spacecraft sufficiant enough to taught the wire? Sure but it would take a long time, like a car spinning its wheels on gravel.

The stopping power of spacecraft in deepspace is what? Not very good is it? To change direction? The same.

Does a spacecraft rely on matter only? Sure. Can a spacecraft push against the gravity felt on it as well? Just as a spacecraft weights more near a planet so does the fundemental matter on which it sets. The more available mass to push against the more thrust available. Interesting isnt it?

July 23

What is the Electron Cloud?

Maybe common knowledge or common sense, either way I can only imagine this as the occelation effect seen with a typical fan for example. Its the visible trace or blur of fast moving electrons. Why you cant pin point the future position of an electron is understandable given the nature of situation. A typical fan blades blurred or past image is not always constant to the future. In the case of an atom, your talking about global rotation, and a number of electrons. The blurred or past images are in turn blurred to each other. The speed or flux at which the electron orbits may change as well altering the blurred image in turn. [How is that so? Its a matter of position relative to the core at any given point in time, that is, the closer to the core the faster is goes, the further the slower it goes. An eliptical orbit in other words.] With the change in speed an unconstant blur occurs and different intensities of the blur. [You can imagine how great a pull the core of an atom has on an electron relativly speaking, as the electrons moving as fast as they are would otherwise break orbit and be flung out. A careful balance exsists of speed of E not to colide with the core. It is the exact same senerio for macro bodies accoring to classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics as it relates to Electrons specifically is nothing more than classical mechanics on the micro scale. ] Tracking the source of the blur the Electron itself is not readily easy due to the fact its blurred image closest to the Electron is about the same intensity of light as the Electron itself. A comet for example which is sperical for the most part looks anything but spherical when in travel. The exact point of surface is masked by the trail. By contrast an Electron doesnt lose energy or give off heat energy as a comet would therefore its trail is purly optical. If you were to slow down or freeze time, would an Electron be spherical or would it be eliptical? Eliptical because of the speed at which it travels forces a shift in geometry. As a change in speed occurs a slight change in geometry occurs in theory, if slowing down, a more spherical geometry is realized. This abnormal geometry can also be confused as being part of the trail. In any case thats what the Electron Cloud is, not gas ect.

July 27

http://science.howstuffworks.com/time-travel4.htm

So called Wormholes and Hyperspace...
( Weve all heard of them before )

First Id like to say that the above example is clearly wrong. There is absolutly no logical basis for that diagram. Heres why. The only way a wormhole could exsist is if gravity from one body orientated in a negative direction towards a positive
direction that is another body. A spherical universe - where the radius is pulled to center. One body on this side of the universe, one body on the exact opposite side of the sphere. Even if thats the case, any sort of bend in space serves no purpose. The bend will decrease or cease to exsist out to a certain point- gravity, and then your traveling through normal space. The so called hyperspace, is the space that the dent occupies, which is rediculously small compared to the whole picture. Only a blackhole would have a significant hyperspace distance. Hyperspace? blah what is that? If you want to define such a term then it could only be called as the space itself that is affected by gravity, which is pretty much all space. Hyperspace is the effect of gravity on space as opposed to no gravity or normal space or something...

Now forget the spherical universe, consider it mostly flat [our galaxy-like]. Where the heck could you logically assume a wormhole? Remembering a dent caused by a body, that dent propates from top down. The dent from a body out 2 light years also would propagate from top down wouldnt it? Ok, therefore there is no shortcut to be assumed.

Back to the spherical universe - gravity propagating to center, replace those 2 bodies with 2 blackholes. I dont care how massive they are, they still are not going to connect to form a wormhole.

Now consider the Universe thin and eliptical, only then would maybe, maybe could 2 opposite sided massive blackholes form a connection. In the highly unprobably connection, this is where you get a term "wormhole" I guess. What would this senerio look like? It would Look like 2 blackholes next to each other, And that exactly what it is!

Dont forget gravity in space is Not uni-directional, its 3Directional - global. Ignore the above examples, I had to say it that way though. Doesnt matter what shape the universe is or where 2 bodies are in it.

The old saying "The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line" Is absolutly true of space!

Whats funny is that you cant even get a speed boost in "Hyperspace", The exact opposite, your getting pulled back to what created it! Theoritically the space on which you travel is stretched or compacted therefore supposedly your shaving off some time and distance but given the gravity pull you also feel from behind, it negates the effect completely! Now obviously breaking middle distance if they are close enough, you start to get pulled to the other object. Gravity! "Hyperspace" what?

Its rediculous.

What is the starting point of this? At the surface of the body. It is Not an X distance out from the source object just to make that clear. We all know where gravity starts.

Definition from Dictionary- Hyperspace: 2. A fictional space in which laws of physics may be circumvented allowing faster-than-light travel or time travel.

I just came up with a new word myself, Negative Hyperspace. Of course it all depends which direction your going..Grin otherwise the effect wouldnt be negative ;) Or lets just simplify and say Hyperspace can be both positive and negative. But I will recognize I suppose the need for a term that defines space in a graviton field, as opposed to space not affected by gravity so much...um yeah..

Actually Im not so sure I have in mind what they had in mind for the term. Im defining it as strectched or compacted space caused by gravity. Now what the hell they are talking about I have no clue, if that not in fact what they are talking about. Oh I know, thats another one of those 2D things, that only can be imagined in 2D...I see it now.. Well thats fine for the people living in 2D but Im pretty sure Im in 3D.

The truth is this, wormholes only work in 2D and with the rediculous idea that theres this fabric of space you have to travel on or above it.. If you want to get from here to the moon, you go straight to it, you dont have to go up and around thousands of miles as depicted in a 2D diagram, theres no surface of space were floating on. And yes there is a shortcut, go straight to it! No wormhole. I have covered this topic of gravity and 2D models trying to depict it before some time back, that should make it more clear if its not already.

I mine as well take this time to say there is alot of things I left unfinished dating back a few months, I didnt forget about them nor did I change my mind about them. I just moved on to what came to me next. I perfer to write like this, figure things out as I go and leave alot of topics open so that in the future I can revisit, maybe even correct errors of thought pertaining to what I wrote back then ect. Most likely add new information or thoughts of discovery to the topic should it ever come back up again. Whatever I wrote in the past, stays in the past.