MT: Very emotional

[Sagacious Lu]

Wouldn't that just be an endorsement of masturbation?

How so

[jubaji]

try to keep up

How so

Well, if she's the 'mother' then....

[Sagacious Lu]

Well, if she's the 'mother' then....

It's not really my style but I don't read into it. I see what you're saying but I don't take it seriously it's just a joke.

[jubaji]

hello? is this thing on? hello?

It's not really my style but I don't read into it. I see what you're saying but I don't take it seriously it's just a joke.

...........................


Ummm...yeah, that was the point.

[Tom Yum]

it lacks integrity lu. would you want your wife wearing a shirt that says mom id like to **** while she is pushing your baby in the stroller?

I'd agree with you on this issue Empty on the basis you and I both wouldn't want someone in your personal circle wearing said shirt.

If the woman wearing the shirt was just a random person in public or a loosely affiliated person, I wouldn't necessarily like it but wouldn't be as concerned about it.

[Tom Yum]

With the resurgence of truly reactionary theocratic conservatism in the US there is more talk of "traditional values" which means less support for women's civil rights, less willingness to help them overcome the effects of discrimmination and more emphasis on making them some sort of 1950s fantasy Stepford Wives. (1) We already see movements to help the poor oppressed boys because they are no longer ahead of girls academically. (2) It's become fashionable to excuse women's lack of advancement in professions as their biological fault. And feminism has been so effectively smeared and slandered that many women whose actual positions are classic third-wave feminist are afraid to so identify. .

Your Stepford wives theory is BS. If a woman chooses to be a stay at home wife, its her right. If she wants to climb the corporate ladder, that's her right. Women are not forced to stay home, despite societies tendency to become more right wing.

There were two points that caught my attention and need clarification:

(1) Can you give a better description of a poor, oppressed boy in terms of current level of schooling, social status, race etc.?

Are we talking about a second-generation Hindu-Asian studying in the Electrical Engineering Department of a State University?

A black-American male who is a business major, at the top of his class and a star athlete at one of our nation's top universities?

Seems by the time you get to university level education, men and women are about the same in terms of academic performance. Like I mentioned that may not be the same in public school levels.

(2) Trends indicate that women are actually advancing in various professional fields. There are more women CEO's today than ever in history, which means that women's earning potential has skyrocketed; women are earning closer and closer to parity with men.

Sex is good, and romance is over-rated but if everything is reduced to a cold commercial transaction we've sacrificed one of the most precious and intimate parts of our humanity on the altar of The Dollar. We are infinitely poorer for it. If there isn't room for love the rest is just monkeys rubbing mucous membranes together. Poetry and song are the vehicles for expressing the deep desire to be special, to be someone's beloved and adored. Every girl has the right to be considered more than a hole for someone's penis.

In your first line, you say sex is good and romance is over-rated.

You follow up by arguing that we've commercialized sex, are therefore poorer in utility because of it and the result is the marginalization of the whole woman.

Your opinion seems contradictory to your argument.

[tellner]

Tom Yum, you haven't been reading the news. The President of Harvard just got in a lot of hot water for saying, right out in front of gawd and everyone that women just weren't biologically suited for the sciences at the higher levels. In education there's a whole bunch of ink, mostly on the part of political activists, about the "boy crisis". What it comes down to is that girls get higher grades, and their detractors believe that therefore the system is failing boys, Title IX needs to be repealed and we must discrimminate in favor of young men. These are simple facts that anyone in the education business can confirm.

So no, I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.

[Sagacious Lu]

Ummm...yeah, that was the point.

Yeah, that occured to me as I was driving home last night

[Tom Yum]

Tom Yum, you haven't been reading the news. The President of Harvard just got in a lot of hot water for saying, right out in front of gawd and everyone that women just weren't biologically suited for the sciences at the higher levels.

Do you think he's right?

After all he is the president of Harvard and prestige reigns over pragmatism in the liberal world but not necessarily the academic!

What it comes down to is that girls get higher grades, and their detractors believe that therefore the system is failing boys .

I'm trying to recall Benjamin Franklin's, Charles Goodyear's or Micheal Dell's gpa... evern read The Millionaire Nextdoor?

Its written by a PhD microeconomist.......check out the mean undergraduate gpa's of american citizens whose net worth is between $1 - $10MM; he also talks a little about those whose networths are > $10MM. It seems conservative, married couples make up the overwhelming majority of both groups, especially those who earned rather than inherited their wealth.

Title IX needs to be repealed and we must discrimminate in favor of young men. These are simple facts that anyone in the education business can confirm.

Not a bad idea, tellner.

I say we let Title IX include aliens. Allow me to explain.

Not illegal aliens - the intergalactic kind. Refer to emptyness's thread for further details. The reason why we should include illegal aliens is for their advancements in propulsion technology. We can therefore acquire the aliens said technology with our own and offer an increasing pay scale for man's technology such that man does not feel discriminated against from the alien's perspective. What seems most fascinating is whether or not the significance of alien propulsion systems is due to more powerful fuel sources, greater advancement in electronic controls or both. Since we are not sure at this point a detailed study of advanced propulsiton technologies (APT) is require. Since these technologies are native to the aliens education levels and not mans, an alien representative can be called upon as a guest lecturer for the study. If no alien representative can be called upon, we can petition them through a new ammendment on Title IX allowing us to forcefully incorporate their chief scientist in the study. My best guess is that alien propulsion technologies are a combination of longer, anti-fouling hydrocarbon molecules with inhibitors that prevent gumming and or plasma (depending on speed desired) in the propulsion system, optimal use of space craft body geometries for just-in-time flight as well as electronic control systems that demonstrate low electrical resistance and perhaps a voice activation system? At the moment there are several propulsion systems that we are looking at which contain the missing link between our own systems and alien propulsion systems, they are as follows: High Power Helicon - an electrodeless plasma thruster able to generate significant force (in Newtons) and demonstrate power/gas efficiency; Mini-magnetospheric plasma propulsion - which can leverage energy from solar wind, while minimizing spacecraft power requirements; mag beam; plasma manget - which has the ability to create large magnetic systems without the need for pre existing magnets!

[Tom Yum]

I was wandering in a bookstore one day and saw one of those StarTrek engineering manuals. I leafed through it and saw all kinds of detailed and interesting drawings. I wondered if the book explained how the "warp drive" worked. I found intriguing terms like "dilithium crystals," "phase inducers," and "inertial dampers." But the book did not explain how this interstellar propulsion system operated, except that it was based on the warping of space. I was disappointed and did not buy the book. But the idea of such a propulsion system fired my imagination. Was it possible? Could I design one? Oh and before I forget the contents of thread came entirely from:

http:/members.dancris.com/~bfraser/4v4a/ADVPROP.html, its one helluva blog...

But I never gave the problem much thought after that. I enjoyed StarTrek because it had good psychological themes, not because it was high-tech. And I really had not the slightest idea how I would design a warp drive.

Eventually though, my mind came back around to confront this problem. I seem to like solving "impossible" problems. I also am intrigued about learning how the human mind solves such problems and creates new concepts and insights seemingly from nothing. I tend to solve problems intuitively, and so the process is not obvious to me.

And so this article is about gravitation and a possible basis for an advanced propulsion system. If you are a regular reader of science magazines you will find the ideas presented here reasonably clear. They are not inherently hard to understand, but they are very different and will require quite a bit of patient reflection. Some background in physics would help you with the terminology.

Also, this article is more concerned with finding the right questions, and the right principles, than with finding the right answers per se. I also think you will find it to be a good example of a useful problem solving attitude I call "creative arrogance." (For more about creativity see: "Creativity in Science and Engineering", Ronald B. Standler,1998, http://www.rbs0.com/create.htm )

The Key Premise

A previous article, An Atom or a Nucleus? refuted the commonly held belief that atomic matter is made up of fundamental particles. Instead, the evidence from physics points to the idea that matter is actually some sort of relationship between space and time. Matter gravitates, and in order to design an advanced propulsion system, an understanding of gravity is very necessary. It follows that we need to know a lot more about how these space-time relationships operate.

Two lines of evidence suggest that matter is comprised of ratios of space and time. The first is the requirement of consistency in the units of measurement in the mathematical equations describing physical phenomena. In common terms this means that if an equation has the units of measurement of apples, oranges, and pineapple on one side of the "=" sign, then it must have fruit, or fruit cocktail units of measurements on the other side; it cannot equate to typewriters or airplanes.

Certain equations in physics are descriptive of fundamental phenomena and space/time ratios appear in these equations. E = cB and E = mc2 are two well-known examples. The "c" term stands for a constant that appeared in Maxwell’s equations pertaining to electromagnetic phenomena. That constant turned out to be the speed of light and so physicists have continued to use the letter "c" to denote that speed. It is quite high—about 186,000 miles per second. It is clearly a space/time ratio. But note that it is used with E (energy), M (mass) and B (magnetic flux density). In order for these equations to be consistent in their units of measurement, E, M, and B must also be space/time ratios. If mass and energy are space time ratios, then every entity in the physical universe must be ultimately reducible to a space/time relationship.

The second line of evidence is that certain physical entities can be inherently described in terms of space/time ratios. The most prominent feature of the photon (light), for example, is a property called "frequency", which has the units of "cycles per second." Frequency is a special sort of speed and can be treated as a space/time ratio.

This is also true of particles having mass. Electrons have a property called "intrinsic spin." This is not the ordinary type of spin you could visualize on a spinning toy. In fact it can be demonstrated in one-dimensional systems where ordinary angular momentum cannot even be defined. Atoms also possess this kind of spin ("intrinsic angular momentum") as the Stern-Gerlach experiment demonstrated in 1924. Intrinsic spin and angular momentum are also akin to speed, but imply rotational space/time relationships instead of linear or oscillatory ones.

In other words, photons (light), atoms, and subatomic particles all seem to possess inherent space/time ratios of various sorts. As far as we know the entire universe is made up of these three classes of entities and so this again amounts to saying that everything in the universe is a space/time ratio.

This would actually resolve the fundamental particle dilemma. As was pointed out in An Atom or a Nucleus? there can be no such thing as a fundamental particle. Particles can be converted into radiation and radiation into particles, but that which is truly fundamental cannot change into some other thing. If radiation and matter are comprised of space/time ratios, then their interconvertability is understandable. When an electron annihilates a positron, for example, a rotational space/time relationship simply converts into the form represented by radiation. Both are still fundamentally space/time ratios.

We cannot explain what space and time really are. Such an explanation could only occur from a viewpoint that is outside of the physical universe, and therefore outside of the scope of science. We humans have an intuitive feel for space and time, but they are both inherently unanalyzable. The function of space and time, on the other hand, seems to clearly involve the concept of separation. It is as though God created them so he could say, "I am here, and you are there. I am me, and you are you." This "separability" is fundamental to concepts like "locality," "identity," and "existence." These are all very important to the physicist and to our understanding of the universe.

Apparent Properties of Space and Time

While we cannot explain what space and time are, it will be fruitful to note their key properties. These seem to be as follows:

1. Space is three-dimensional. Space has a property we could call "extensionality" and it manifests this property in three independent ways, and is typically described by three independent numbers. This is just a technical way of saying space is "three-dimensional."

2. Time progresses. The most obvious effect of time is to order events in time and to separate such events in time. Time seems to progress only in one direction.

Note that the ordering of events in time seems to be independent of their ordering in space. I can lay out cards on a table, but their spatial order says nothing about which card was laid down first or last.

3. Time is three-dimensional in the same sense that space is three-dimensional.



This peculiar conclusion is forced upon us when we try to account for the observed properties of light. The Michelson-Morley experiment, Bradley’s telescopic stellar aberration, and de Sitter’s problem, all suggest that the speed of light is constant in all reference systems in a vacuum. The measured speed does not depend on the speed of the emitter, or upon the physical reference system used for measurement. This actually facilitates our understanding of the universe, but is also counterintuitive. An illustration will help clarify the meaning of these statements.

Suppose two automobiles are moving directly away from each other, one traveling north and the other, south. Suppose that their speedometers each show 50 miles per hour as the rate of travel over the ground. Simple intuition tell us that the separation rate of these two automobiles relative to each other is 100 miles per hour.

But now suppose we repeated this experiment using two photons instead of automobiles. Photons move at speed "c" the speed of light. The rate at which the two photons separate—the total spatial separation divided by the total time separation—is expected to be 2c. Simple experiments do in fact show a speed of 2c, but the more fundamental evidence mentioned above suggests that this speed is only an artifact of the reference system. The photons physically separate at the actual rate of c, not 2c.

The simplest way around this uncomfortable conclusion is to claim that time is three-dimensional like space, and that photons travel simultaneously in both space and time. As the accompanying illustration shows, the two photons have moved one spatial unit away from the source and are separated from each other by two spatial units. But if light travels through time, the total temporal separation would also be two units. This keeps the ratio constant and so the speed of the photon, whether relative to the source, or relative to the other photon, would always be c. In other words it is both constant and independent of the reference system.

This seems like a good explanation except that temporal positions cannot be depicted in a spatial reference system. So how do we know this is really happening? Is there any evidence that photons have a physical position in three-dimensional (or "coordinate") time? Yes, there is.

Modify the above illustration by requiring that the two photons be emitted in the same event. For example, there is a device that can convert a single violet photon into two red photons; the total energy remains the same and the requirement that they originate in the same event is satisfied. These photons can then separate as shown in the illustration. It can be shown that if something alters the polarization of the photon moving to the right, something will also happen to the polarization of the one moving to the left. The two photons could be widely separated, even miles from each other, and this will still happen. How can one photon "know" what has happened to the other? Could some effect be propagated across space at twice the speed of light? Or is this what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance"—a concept that makes physicists very uncomfortable?

The underlying explanation seems to be simple. The photons are moving in both space and time. In space they are separating, but because they originated in the same event, they remain in the same temporal location, and that location moves away from the source and carries the two photons. It follows that if I disturb one photon, the other one becomes disturbed because they are both in the same temporal location, even though they are not in the same spatial location. Our spatial reference system is incapable of depicting temporal locations, and so the effect looks like the incomprehensible "action at a distance."

This effect, though not the explanation, is actually well known to physicists. It was first described in a scientific paper written by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935 and which later came to be known as the "EPR paradox." It was originally a "thought experiment" with no experimental basis. But in the 1960s a mathematical theorem by John S. Bell allowed this paradox to be tested experimentally. Several experiments of widely differing designs were performed since then and the physical reality of the EPR paradox has been thoroughly confirmed. Physicists still have not found a plausible explanation for this effect and articles about it continue to appear regularly in the scientific and engineering journals. It is a fascinating and classical problem in quantum physics.

4. Space progresses in the same sense that time progresses.

We readily sense the progression of time, but space seems to "stay put" and not progress. If space did progress, it would manifest itself as an expansion. Everything in our environment would be moving away from everything else. I know of only two instances where this seems to be the case: photons always move outward and away from the source of emission, and galaxies are moving away from us as well as each other (the "expanding universe"). Both effects involve what could be called "free space." But if both space and time are three-dimensional, and if both progress, why do we sense the progression of time but not space?

To humans, one second of time is a readily comprehensible quantity. But physically a natural quantity of time is more likely on the order of the Rydberg fundamental frequency, or about 10-16 seconds. That means that we humans apprehend an enormous amount of time at one glance. What if our view of space could be similarly enlarged? What would we see if our desktop unit of space were 1016 light-seconds? That is roughly 300 million light years. Our galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter. On this scale we would need a microscope just to see a galaxy! If our desktop were large enough to hold say, 100 of these units of measurement, we would be looking at 30 billion light years of space in one glance. The evidence from astronomy indicates that under these circumstances we would definitely sense the expansion (progression) of space. But we would not have any obvious clue that it is three-dimensional.

This idea, incidentally, is consistent with statements in the Bible about the "stretching out of the heavens." (Job 26:7, 9:8, 37:18, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15, Zechariah 12:1) It is also consistent with recent discoveries in astronomy pertaining to Einstein's cosmological constant, dark energy, etc: "REPULSIVE FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE", Physics News Update, March 4, 1998, http://www.aip.org/pnu/1998/split/pnu361-1.htm

[Tom Yum]

The following is a preview from Emptyness's post on alien propulsion systems...

small preview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP9Vj9Z_hXA

The Disclosure Project is a not for profit organization dedicated to disclosing, unclassifying, and conducting hearings related to shadow governments, UFOs, extraterrestrial life, and advanced technologies. Many (over 400) government, military, and scientific officials came forth May 9, 2001 in a national press club conference conducted by Steven M. Greer, M.D.

you can watch footage from these press confrences here.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&search=Search

whats being claimed by these people in the disclosure project press confrences sound way to crazy to be true. but the problem is, they are all ex military and air force people. people with reputations, not your average joes. here is the list of people who have come foreward and all are willing to testify before congress about what they have witnessed. its pretty impressive if you ask me. i may be a jackoff with no credentials, but what about these men ?


Partial list of witnesses who came forward [1]

* Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut
* Monsignor Corrado Balducci, Vatican theologian
* FAA Division Chief John Callahan, ex-Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA, Washington DC
* Sgt. Chuck Sorrells, US Air Force (ret.)
* Mr. Michael W. Smith, US Air Force
* Commander Graham Bethune, US Navy (retired)
* Mr. Enrique Kolbeck, Senior Air Traffic Controller
* Dr. Richard Haines, NASA research scientist
* Mr. Franklin Carter, US Navy
* Mr. Neil Daniels, United Airlines Airline Pilot, ex-Air Force
* Sgt. Robert Blazina (retired)
* Lieutenant Frederick Marshall Fox, US Navy (retired)
* Captain Massimo Poggi, senior 747 captain for Alitalia
* Lieutenant Bob Walker, US Army
* Mr. Don Bockelman, US Army
* Lt. Colonel Dwynne Arneson, US Air Force (retired)
* Professor Robert Jacobs, Lt. US Air Force
* Colonel Ross Dedrickson, US Air Force (ret.)/AEC
* Harry Allen Jordan, US Navy
* Mr. James Kopf, US Navy/ National Security Agency
* Lieutenant Colonel Joe Wojtecki, Strategic Air Command and Tactical Air Command
* Staff Sergeant Stoney Campbell, US Air Force
* Astronaut Gordon Cooper
* Brigadier General Steven Lovekin, Esq., White House Army Signaling Agency
* Merle Shane McDow, US Navy Atlantic Command
* Lieutenant Colonel Charles Brown (retired), US Air Force
* Dr. Carol Rosin, manager, Fairchild Industries
* "Dr. B.", scientist and engineer who has worked on top-secret projects
* Lance Corporal John Weygandt, Marine Corp
* Mr. Nick Pope, British Ministry Of Defense
* Admiral Lord Hill-Norton, five-star Admiral and the former Head of the British Ministry of Defense
* Security Officer Larry Warren, US Air Force
* Captain Lori Rehfeldt, British Royal Air Force
* Sergeant Clifford Stone, United States Army
* Major-General Vasily Alexeyev, Space Communications Center, Russia
* Master Sergeant Dan Morris, USAF (Retired)/ NRO Operative
* Mr. Don Phillips, Lockheed Skunkworks, USAF, and CIA Contractor
* Captain Bill Uhouse, US Marine Corps (ret.)
* Lieutenant Colonel John Williams, Air Force rescue helicopter pilot


all these men testified about witnessing and being involved with ufo encounters. you can watch the videos for yourself and see what they had to say.

------------------------------------------------------

While emptyness believes that this is all real, I believe that it is mere myth based on the fact that we engineer our own propulsion systems from natural inspiration and imagination.

[jubaji]

The President of Harvard just got in a lot of hot water for saying, right out in front of gawd and everyone that women just weren't biologically suited for the sciences at the higher levels.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what was said and the context in which it was presented.

[3mptin3ss]

The following is a preview from Emptyness's post on alien propulsion systems...

small preview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP9Vj9Z_hXA

The Disclosure Project is a not for profit organization dedicated to disclosing, unclassifying, and conducting hearings related to shadow governments, UFOs, extraterrestrial life, and advanced technologies. Many (over 400) government, military, and scientific officials came forth May 9, 2001 in a national press club conference conducted by Steven M. Greer, M.D.

you can watch footage from these press confrences here.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&search=Search

whats being claimed by these people in the disclosure project press confrences sound way to crazy to be true. but the problem is, they are all ex military and air force people. people with reputations, not your average joes. here is the list of people who have come foreward and all are willing to testify before congress about what they have witnessed. its pretty impressive if you ask me. i may be a jackoff with no credentials, but what about these men ?


Partial list of witnesses who came forward [1]

* Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut
* Monsignor Corrado Balducci, Vatican theologian
* FAA Division Chief John Callahan, ex-Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA, Washington DC
* Sgt. Chuck Sorrells, US Air Force (ret.)
* Mr. Michael W. Smith, US Air Force
* Commander Graham Bethune, US Navy (retired)
* Mr. Enrique Kolbeck, Senior Air Traffic Controller
* Dr. Richard Haines, NASA research scientist
* Mr. Franklin Carter, US Navy
* Mr. Neil Daniels, United Airlines Airline Pilot, ex-Air Force
* Sgt. Robert Blazina (retired)
* Lieutenant Frederick Marshall Fox, US Navy (retired)
* Captain Massimo Poggi, senior 747 captain for Alitalia
* Lieutenant Bob Walker, US Army
* Mr. Don Bockelman, US Army
* Lt. Colonel Dwynne Arneson, US Air Force (retired)
* Professor Robert Jacobs, Lt. US Air Force
* Colonel Ross Dedrickson, US Air Force (ret.)/AEC
* Harry Allen Jordan, US Navy
* Mr. James Kopf, US Navy/ National Security Agency
* Lieutenant Colonel Joe Wojtecki, Strategic Air Command and Tactical Air Command
* Staff Sergeant Stoney Campbell, US Air Force
* Astronaut Gordon Cooper
* Brigadier General Steven Lovekin, Esq., White House Army Signaling Agency
* Merle Shane McDow, US Navy Atlantic Command
* Lieutenant Colonel Charles Brown (retired), US Air Force
* Dr. Carol Rosin, manager, Fairchild Industries
* "Dr. B.", scientist and engineer who has worked on top-secret projects
* Lance Corporal John Weygandt, Marine Corp
* Mr. Nick Pope, British Ministry Of Defense
* Admiral Lord Hill-Norton, five-star Admiral and the former Head of the British Ministry of Defense
* Security Officer Larry Warren, US Air Force
* Captain Lori Rehfeldt, British Royal Air Force
* Sergeant Clifford Stone, United States Army
* Major-General Vasily Alexeyev, Space Communications Center, Russia
* Master Sergeant Dan Morris, USAF (Retired)/ NRO Operative
* Mr. Don Phillips, Lockheed Skunkworks, USAF, and CIA Contractor
* Captain Bill Uhouse, US Marine Corps (ret.)
* Lieutenant Colonel John Williams, Air Force rescue helicopter pilot


all these men testified about witnessing and being involved with ufo encounters. you can watch the videos for yourself and see what they had to say.

------------------------------------------------------

While emptyness believes that this is all real, I believe that it is mere myth based on the fact that we engineer our own propulsion systems from natural inspiration and imagination.

what did you think about my post tom? what did you think about the video clips, expecially the tether one?

[tellner]

That's a gross misrepresentation of what was said and the context in which it was presented.

Not even close. He tried to spin it afterwards. It didn't wash.You're either being obtuse or dishonest.

[jubaji]

Not even close. He tried to spin it afterwards. It didn't wash.You're either being obtuse or dishonest.

You're being an asshole.

His comments and their context were discussed and debated ad naseum at the time. They were harmless, non-judgemental, and intended to spur honest, open academic discussion at a forum for just that. Later the man explained himself and what he meant eight ways to Sunday. The professors there at Harvard had been after his head for a looooong time prior to that and took the opportunity to whip up some excitement among the drones in their classrooms who are better at making posters than thinking. He got screwed and Harvard struck a serious blow against academic freedom and women's place in society.