1,200 and Counting

[Jam]

Re: 1,200 and Counting

There is no such thing as Zero Mass.

Actually, there is. Photon has zero (rest) mass. In fact, every particle that moves at the speed of light has zero rest mass. And vice versa: if a particle has zero rest mass, it must move at the speed of light. The masslessness of a photon has been verified experimentally to very high precision. For a long time there was a debate whether neutrinos have zero rest mass or not. As far as I know, the evidence now points to them actually being massive. This would leave only photon and graviton (still elusive) to be massless.

[c1ue]

Re: 1,200 and Counting

I stand corrected. You are correct with regard to mass; as we know it today. But to my certain knowledge, absolutely no one has any experimental data related to the conditions that mass will be under, if the object is completely disconnected from any external gravitational environment. What I did was speculate as to the resulting condition. I entirely accept that was a speculation and might very well be entirely wrong.

Fair enough. Given that complete disconnect from outside gravitational forces either requires immense distances from any mass and/or complete control of gravity (gravitons, anyone?), this is unprovable at present one way or the other.

Now we must agree to disagree. You see, if my own thinking is correct; then the ability to accelerate any mass is entirely related to the degree of gravitational attachments to that mass.

My theory is that gravity is an attachment force; and as such, the attachments introduce a direct force field attachment between, say a vehicle, and the mass of this planet. That if you disconnect the force field attachments, then you disconnect that which had been preventing the acceleration.

This is an interesting concept - my question is what leads you to believe this?

In effect you are speculating then that the 'increasing' mass effect as you converge toward lightspeed is some type of asymptotic response by gravity on a mass.

All I have done is write a book about gravity. A large part of the book is dedicated to proposed experiments to set about such proof. What has become remarkable is the almost complete refusal to debate the proposed experiments, let along the wider debate in the book. I do realise that what I have proposed drives a coach and horses over existing theories and does set out a complete destruction of both Big Bang theory and Ideal Gas Law. But the fact is; there is another detailed theory that does just that. But that is not my problem; I just wrote the book.

Fair enough

The starting point for this debate was the idea that the transmission in a wireless transmitter signal at the transmitting tower transmits effectively the same transmission signal to every tower. In the sense of what one might describe as an old fashioned system, for example with emergency services, that is absolutely so. Every tower on the system transmitting the signal from a particular station has exactly the same signal transmitted from every aerial.

In the early days of cellular, this might be true, but even today emergency services (i.e. a US 911 call) still uses the 'check in' method. In fact strictly speaking all phones when on check in - even if they are employing an invalid SIM. Otherwise it is impossible to route the emergency services in a local area.

What modern electronics has enabled, is the very high speed monitoring and computing of the return signal received back from the hand held; and from that monitoring, a reliable method of control over the back haul network to enable the most efficient use of the bandwidth of the system.

This is true, but this doesn't mean that every transmission tower broadcasts every routed call to every mobile. As I noted previously, once a given cellular ID is identified in a given cell area and logged into the central data center, all calls to that cellular ID are only routed to that cell tower.

But if your hand held is turned off, the system does not know where you are and the transmission goes out to every tower until it "finds" the user.

This might be true, depending on the system.

However, what is far more likely is that the central system waits for 2 or 3 seconds to see if the sought after cellular ID 'checks in' at the last moment, rather than do a search in every transmission tower. A company like Verizon which serves over 85 million customers cannot possibly be searching even a tiny fraction of their customer base at every transmission tower.

yes, there are many regulations and laws in place to prevent anyone from breaking into such systems. They are after all the most important communication system.

I was not, (nor did I intend), to give the idea that breaking into such systems should be either condoned or encouraged. I was simply making the point that the signal is available beyond the direct connection between the local tower directly connected to the users hand held.

If you mean, can a similarly ID'd cell phone in the same cell also receive the same signal, the answer is that you are correct.

If you mean a similarly ID'd cell phone in a different cell - you would not be unless some special subroutine were activated at the central station level as happened with the Greek cell phone caper:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07...iretap_latest/

In this case, which incidentally could be replicated by government security agencies, a number of specific cell phone IDs had their data streams echoed to a second cell ID.

I also note I was mistaken on the nature of the Arraycomm work - it appears the processing is differential more on the software side, although there is a fixed hardware component as well (no micromechanical). From the image below, however, clearly there is at least some 'beaming' involved.

Actually, there is. Photon has zero (rest) mass. In fact, every particle that moves at the speed of light has zero rest mass. And vice versa: if a particle has zero rest mass, it must move at the speed of light. The masslessness of a photon has been verified experimentally to very high precision. For a long time there was a debate whether neutrinos have zero rest mass or not. As far as I know, the evidence now points to them actually being massive. This would leave only photon and graviton (still elusive) to be massless.

Fair enough, though I believe both Chris Coles and myself were referring to moving objects as opposed to wavicles

However, when you start talking about things like photons, the terms mass and energy become rather blurry and interchangeable... A photon indeed has zero rest mass, but it equally has non-zero energy.

And we all know the energy/mass equation!

[peakishmael]

Re: 1,200 and Counting

It is a fair point that a sufficiently power laser can also communicate. But again, a laser requires aim - modern cellular systems for example actually have thousands of mini antenna that 'aim' a cellular signal to specific cell phones (which is why I can track anyone's cell phone).

While this type of approach theoretically can apply to a coherent light signal, again this is a quantum leap in terms of complexity even disregarding the difficulties of using light in an atmosphere (space much less of an issue, though aim is actually a larger problem).

If alien intelligences were aiming a message laser, nonetheless the strength of laser required would still be astronomical, not to mention the number of lasers necessary to reach a significant fraction of surrounding star systems.

Bottom line: I don't think the SETI concept is bad - any intelligent signal should display some regularity. I just don't know if such are detectable even if such signals exist due to the tremendously large amounts involved - both time and space.

Aiming is relatively trivial. You can buy amateur astronomy equipment that will aim telescopes at specific targets, to sub-arcminute accuracy.

You are wrong about the strength/power required for lasers. Radio can't be pointed very accurately, and because the signal spreads out as it goes (much more so than a laser), the strength of the signal decreases with the square of the distance - making the power requirement for interstellar radio transmission MUCH higher than for an aimed laser system.

Seeing the signal on the other end is a smaller issue than you might imagine:

"A high-intensity pulsed laser, teamed with a moderate sized telescope, forms an efficient interstellar beacon. Using only "Earth 2000" technology, we could build such a laser transmitter. To a distant observer in the direction of its slender beam, it would appear (during its brief pulse) a thousand times brighter than our sun."

http://seti.harvard.edu/oseti/

[c1ue]

Re: 1,200 and Counting

Aiming is relatively trivial. You can buy amateur astronomy equipment that will aim telescopes at specific targets, to sub-arcminute accuracy.

You are wrong about the strength/power required for lasers. Radio can't be pointed very accurately, and because the signal spreads out as it goes (much more so than a laser), the strength of the signal decreases with the square of the distance - making the power requirement for interstellar radio transmission MUCH higher than for an aimed laser system.

Seeing the signal on the other end is a smaller issue than you might imagine:

"A high-intensity pulsed laser, teamed with a moderate sized telescope, forms an efficient interstellar beacon. Using only "Earth 2000" technology, we could build such a laser transmitter. To a distant observer in the direction of its slender beam, it would appear (during its brief pulse) a thousand times brighter than our sun."

http://seti.harvard.edu/oseti/

Aiming is not trivial. The solar system we are in moves, and the other solar systems out there move as well at different speeds and directions. Combine this with the speed of light, and hitting a fuzzy amorphous target 100 years away in time which is moving is nontrivial. And 100 light year is nothing in interstellar terms.

Secondly the concept of some tiny laser showing up like the sun on another planet is also a theory.

If in fact you knew exactly where the observer was, and could focus exactly (despite 100 light years worth of possible intervening debris/gravitational fields/whatever, perhaps it might be possible but for more likely is that you must blanket the entire surface of a target planet (and what about other targeted planets even in the same solar system?) with the laser.

The sun gives out 1400 or so Watts per square meter on the outside of the Earth atmosphere with only 340 Watts per square meter on the surface (averaged); to cover the entire planet implies a laser with truly prodigious power output.

Total solar radiation at the outer atmosphere is 174 Petawatts (174 x 1000000 gigawatts).

So yes, if you could somehow hit a 100 light year or more distant bullseye with a perfectly aligned laser, and the observer was sitting right at that specific spot at the specific time, a 1400 watt laser could do the trick.

Otherwise however you need really, really, really, REALLY big lasers.

[Chris Coles]

Re: 1,200 and Counting

Fair enough. Given that complete disconnect from outside gravitational forces either requires immense distances from any mass and/or complete control of gravity (gravitons, anyone?), this is unprovable at present one way or the other.

Gravity is an attachment force between atoms of mass; for example, between gas molecules, each attached to each other and a solid mass, such as this planet. That in effect, your body mass is attached to the planet surface by the molecules of the atmosphere that surrounds you. That the gas molecules form Gas Molecule Attachment Force Columns that rise from the surface and extend to either infinity or the next nearest attachment. In which case, gravity is entirely electromagnetic and conforms to James Clerk Maxwell's teachings with regard to any positive electromagnetic force field either seeking the closest negative potential or extending to infinity.

What I have done is describe why we can see a vortex in the atmosphere, attached to the ground in front of an operating aircraft engine, that extends up in front of the engine and into the mass of the engine. (Something that aircraft engineers have been looking at for decades when they run up the engines). That was not my starting point for the questions raised, but it was one of the things that originally set me to thinking.

Conventional science believes each gas molecule to be a completely disconnected object free to move linearly under the rules of Ideal Gas Law and all temperature and pressure calculations depend upon that premise. A lifetime of thought has brought me to the conclusion that Ideal Gas Law will not stand up to a very detailed logical debate. That gas molecules cannot detach from each other nor from mass; that such attachment is what we describe as gravity. That the electromagnetic force field of the proton extends beyond the orbit of the proton's electron, (which is also a part of the structure of the proton), to seek out an electromagnetic attachment, (under Maxwell's rules), with the closest negative potential.

That once we accept that premise, then all atoms are thus constrained and rotate within an external energy field, (beyond the orbit of the proton's electrons), that extends between each atom. As all atoms rotate constantly, then these electromagnetic force field attachments must, under Maxwell's rules, always seek the shortest distance to a negative potential and thus they are constantly attaching and detaching and that such movement is the source of all observable energy from any such mass.

That the ripples, (caused by the sudden attachment or detachment of these fields), along these attaching and detaching electromagnetic force field attachments are what conventional science describe as photons of energy.

This is an interesting concept - my question is what leads you to believe this?

After a lifetime of thought, I sat down and started to write about my disagreement with another theory regarding a "Big Bang". (Which I have not described here). Each new discovery prompted another way to look at the whole subject; ending with a completely new description for the structure for the proton, which in turn led to a completely new way to view everything related.

In my opinion, we live in an entirely electromagnetic universe and what we call gravity is simply the electromagnetic force field connection between atoms of mass.

In effect you are speculating then that the 'increasing' mass effect as you converge toward lightspeed is some type of asymptotic response by gravity on a mass.

Fair enough

No, I am not saying that. What I believe is if you completely disconnect mass from external attachment; then you do not have to address any increasing mass effect. That existing theory is so far off the wall; it should never have got past the peer review process.

I also note I was mistaken on the nature of the Arraycomm work - it appears the processing is differential more on the software side, although there is a fixed hardware component as well (no micromechanical). From the image below, however, clearly there is at least some 'beaming' involved.

These new aerials use six small peg aerials set out in a hexagon around a circle about four inches in diameter and the transmission is digitally controlled in such a manner as to interact with each "Peg" in such a way to be able to direct the signal in any direction. Indeed, I believe they do not truly understand what is going on, but have discovered an effect and how to control it. The process matches exactly my views of the external energy field surrounding each gas molecule.