.
VR
Xzavier's Journal



THIS JOURNAL IS ON 144 FAVORITE JOURNAL LISTS

Honor: 0    [ Give / Take ]

PROFILE




11 entries this month
 

09:15 Dec 24 2008
Times Read: 823


Every once and a while I'll get struck with little bits of revelation or new ideas or old thoughts that I haven't thought on for quite some time.



Today I came upon the thought that although Western Civilization may be based on the ancient Greeks a vast portion of our modern civilization (past 500 years) actually comes from Germanic roots.



English is a Germanic language

Celts are derived from the Germanic regions of north and middle Europe.

Christmas trees, as we know them, come from Germany.

Modern thinkers:

Einstein, Bach, Brahms,Handel, Nietzsche, Mobius, Ostwald, Planck



Popular culture:

Hedi Klum, Claudia Schiffer, Arnold Schwarzenegger



Not to mention the royal families of the UK, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands even Spain.



And so much more. Just rather interesting to think about.


COMMENTS

-



atyourwindow
atyourwindow
09:35 Dec 24 2008

sure you can cherry pick the very best out of society its much more interesting the more morbid history of those ethnic peoples....*sticks toungue out at you* lol





StoneCrow
StoneCrow
11:57 Dec 24 2008

Let's not foget Calvinism in the work ethic (more the bother really).





 

08:23 Dec 21 2008
Times Read: 858


4 Questions to Never Ask Your Guy

by Cosmopolitan.com, on Wed Nov 12, 2008



~~I think these are great questions to avoid and can be adapted to gay and straight couples, Xzavier~~



Unless you want to bruise your love bond, these questions are best left unasked.



1. "Am I better-looking/smarter/etc. than your ex?"

Would you want him to ask you that? If he answers yes to your q, you'll wonder if he's lying. If he says no, well, can your really handle that kind of truth? He's with you now, not her, so just don't even go there.



2. "Do you love me?"

Has he used the L word already? Well, there's your answer. If he hasn't--and you absolutely have to know where he stands--you might start by telling him how you feel about him, rather than putting him on the spot with a needy question.



3. "Can you lend me some money?"

A few bucks is fine, but asking for anything substantial (like a down payment on your car, a month's rent, etc) is unfair. You don't sleep with your bank teller, so don't borrow cash from your boyfriend.



4. "Are you cheating on me?"

If he's innocent, he'll resent the question. If he's guilty, chances are that he'll lie...and even when you have info to backup your suspicions, you better soft-pedal your accusation. If you're wrong, your relationship may never recover.



COMMENTS

-



MyEvilTwin
MyEvilTwin
09:42 Dec 21 2008

Yes those are good questions to never ask.





deathnitegrl
deathnitegrl
11:26 Dec 21 2008

I agree I've never asked any of my ex's such things.



Many of my friends argue a lot because of these questions especially no1 and 4.



Jeese I don't know what the hell is wrong with certain women, leave the bloody ex's out of the relationship!





atyourwindow
atyourwindow
12:10 Dec 21 2008

hmmmmmmmmm





Sinora
Sinora
14:19 Dec 21 2008

Before asking question number two...I like to get em in an arm lock.





XxLadyDarkRaynexX
XxLadyDarkRaynexX
14:32 Dec 21 2008

Sometimes some questions you just don't want the answers to.





Irony
Irony
16:03 Dec 21 2008

I am stuffed with things like that since I find it acutely painful to lie unless it is damn near life and death. I hate feeling cornered so I am in full agreement.





 

06:30 Dec 18 2008
Times Read: 888


You know I get really tired of seeing womens breasts, and no it's not because I'm gay.



It seems like thats all anyone ever cares about on a woman are these two bags of fat (hey thats what they are). I understand straight men like them and woman should be proud of them but seriously folks, is that all you have to offer? Is that all you care about?



Yeah I really like seeing a guys cock and ass but if I had to choose between his dick or his face I'd take his face. A face has much more to offer, much more dynamic and and can keep a gaze of lust, heart and mind.



Everywhere I look it's "boobies boobies boobies!" It's annoying and generally pointless, that's what it is. Sure have fun with them, don't be afraid to show them off but don't let that be the focus of everything.



Plus (as for avatars etc) did you ever think that not everyone wants the first thing they learn or see of you is a shirt filled with flesh? I can appreciate a womans body (trust me I can) but I'd rather engage your eyes and smile before I turn jealous your rack is bigger than my first car.



Perhaps I'm rambling but honestly I'm getting tired of "fun bags" just as I'm getting tired of seeing only a guys package or ass.



I'm getting tired of women only showing off one bit of flesh that has as much use as a spare tire round the belly when not in service for babies. I'm getting sick of the statement (intended or not) that the only good thing about being a woman is having breasts. I'm getting tired of straight men acting like total pieces of shit by only caring about a girls rack. I'm getting tired of having nipples and large round things in my face when I'd rather see muscular pecks to please my pecker and a genuine smile to satisfy both my heart and mind.



Come on is that really all a woman is, a body?

Is that all anyone is, flesh?

Hell, my own body is nothing to laugh at and Ive got parts of me that would turn most heads. I've never been denied sexually and thats no exaggeration. However, if my body is something that's so obvious, if it's something that only has one purpose then why would I want to focus on it? You know what else is amazing? You know what I've got that everyone can appreciate, that many could be jealous of, that isn't so "instant gratification? A mind, a brain that weighs 3 pounds that can do more to your mind and conjure up more things to do to your body than something as simple as your breasts or my cock n ass.



Be sexy, get laid, show off, work hard so you look fantastic but don't make me have to ask if you're a hooker or not. Don't make me feel sorry for the kid(s) you're raising when all anyone who's around them ever cares about is some body that will turn to goo faster than the scars of emotional and sexual trauma will heal.



Maybe I've gone a bit nuts, I hope I've just learned that the body really isn't everything.



--X


COMMENTS

-



atyourwindow
atyourwindow
06:34 Dec 18 2008

boobs , for those who love em no excuse is needed....for those who dont none good enough lol





Nista
Nista
06:39 Dec 18 2008

Boobs are boring.



[/mesmerizing statement]





MyEvilTwin
MyEvilTwin
07:09 Dec 18 2008

Doc,



Well said. looks at her lol Well, ya I do get tired of seeing all the lil girls showing off there lil girl ones, kind of disgusting.





moonkissed
moonkissed
13:44 Dec 19 2008

thank you Doc. i agree with you on all counts.

i belong to an adult Dungeon site and i see an awful lot of this garbage. most of what we posted was tasteful, clothed bondage pics. i am very tired of seeing cocks, assholes, intercourse, breasts and various other things. for crying out loud, there is more to life!



i am usually drawn to a woman's legs myself.





xxEmaeraldxx
xxEmaeraldxx
18:02 Dec 19 2008

Oh, come on.. admit it! You know you would love a pair of 38DDDD's (that is if you are looking to fall over) lol!





deathnitegrl
deathnitegrl
13:56 Dec 21 2008

Well said, I get disgusted to see pics everywhere of boobs and men talking about us like we were made of plastic. And no I don't feel complimented if a man says I've got nice boobs, I want to be appreciated for my mind not body! And still saying: nice boobs I wanna fuck ya is not a compliment, you are pretty is but not nice boobs.





Irony
Irony
16:05 Dec 21 2008

Honestly, I could care less about how someone looks though fake tits are repellent to me. I would take moobs over them any day of the week. I have always chosen my partners on intelligence (apart from some notable errors which I blame on very strong painkillers:P)





StoneCrow
StoneCrow
16:57 Dec 21 2008

Hmmm, this sounds oddly familiar...lol. "your rack is bigger than my first car." ~dies laughing~ Awesome!



I totally agree with you about the boob thing. Here is something that I found pretty funny. I read somewhere that when women show off their boobs in a photo on websites, it is because of two reasons. One is they are overweight and two is they have low self esteem. I am not saying this is my opinion, only that it is what I read.



I am more of a leg and ass man myself. I would rather a woman have a firm smallish C cup and a really nice pair of stems and ass, than a D, DD or anything like that. It just gets in the way sexually, IMO, and seems to create back problems for the woman.





 

00:52 Dec 18 2008
Times Read: 912


These two questions were posed by Sinora to me in the Star of the North Sci-Fi group. I love it!



"Why don't photons decay and where does all the light go?"





The jury is still out on whether or not photons decay. It seems that they don't but we don't know entirely.



If a photon decays it would probably have to do with it's interaction with the curvature (and general nature) of space-time (s/t). As a photon travels along it is, obviously, going through s/t and would give off/loose a tiny bit of it's energy (technically it's information) which would cause it to loose an amount sufficient enough to render it no longer a photon. An analogy that might be a bit easier to grasp is this:



Wet ice on wet ice has the lowest friction of any two known surfaces. Imagine a photon being a cube of wet ice sliding on a surface of wet ice (s/t, it has pretty much zero friction so we can use the same substance). Even though there is almost no friction there is some.As the ice cube travels for mile after mile it will encounter the minuscule friction offered by the ice sheet. It will also be going over ice at slightly varying temperatures which will create a tiny amount of differing 'information', thus a wee bit more friction. Space also has small variations in temperature which would have the same effect. So after millions of years of moving along the cumulative friction would have either chipped away enough ice to make it no longer ice or would have caused enough entropy (lack of order/change) to where our ice cube is no more.



That's about as well as I can describe it. I have no clue how long it might take a photon to decay, it could take a longer time than the universe has existed so there may not be any photons who have decayed.



Now then, on to where the photons go.



Photons spread out over distance and time. If you take a hand held laser pointer and shine it at the moon the laser will hit the moon's surface in about 1.28 seconds however, the beam is now something like 5 miles in diameter. This effect is part of whats referred to as the "light cone", a literal cone of light. Because of this effect light gets spread out and diluted an enormous amount through the course of the universe (being 156 billion ly across). The light that just keeps going will continue to travel. The main reason why the universe isn't lit up like a Christmas Tree is because for us to see light it must pass into our eyes, thankfully we only get to see a tiny tiny tiny amount of light.



Some of the light gets absorbed. When a photon is absorbed it's kinetic energy gets transfered into the absorbing medium (dust, water, metal, clouds, planets etc) and is then no longer a photon. It has become the energy used by whatever absorbed it. A vast amount of light gets absorbed. In fact when we see color what we are actually seeing is the frequency of light that didn't get absorbed but reflected.



Light that is reflected is simply that, reflected. Our little photon gets bounced around let say from the light bulb to the mirror to our pupils where it is then absorbed. When light gets reflected between two objects (a mirror to another mirror) it's transit time slows down, that is the time it takes for the light to make it outside of the area is drawn out. It may be interesting to note that a photon that is created in the middle of the sun can take over a thousand years to make it past the surface and from there 8 minutes to us. So, some light is bound up in eons of reflection. Another neat thing to know is that as light passes through a diamond it takes twice the time to be reflected out as normal due to the density (thus higher amount of reflection) of the diamond. In other words if there was a diamond 1 (regular) light year across it would take a beam of light 2 years to make it to the other side.



So between light being bound up in a stars core, to getting gobbled up by black holes, being absorbed by dust or our pupils, flying through s/t for an eternity, spreading out and possibly decaying over trillions of years we now know what happens to all that light :)



I hope reading this was as enjoyable to you as it was for me to write it. Great question Sinora! :)


COMMENTS

-



atyourwindow
atyourwindow
01:51 Dec 18 2008

Vampire Rave - The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory - http://www/VampireRave.com



Xzavier
Xzavier
02:29 Dec 18 2008

um Higgs? hello thats only an assumption. Plus what do protons have to do w photons? (I could just be real tired n read that diagram wrong)





Sinora
Sinora
08:19 Dec 18 2008

Ta hon...*hugs*.





 

15:07 Dec 17 2008
Times Read: 918


Veiled Mockery on VR



...This may be "just the internet" but how we act when we feel we can let our 'hair down' is indicative of either how we'll act in real life or at least how we'd act if we felt we could get a way with it.



Rather like the old saying "you'll know how a man will treat his wife/girlfriend by how he treats his mother."



I don't understand how people can act like jerks or let things blow up without using logic and wisdom to determine the truth. Living your life with an even temper and not acting a fool off the fly is paramount to maintaining both a real and cyber life of relative peace and happiness.



Besides, it's ignorance to think that people will behave any differently online than they do off-line. In real life people will abuse power, spread rumors, get mad etc.. why wouldn't they do it in a world where they don't have to worry about real life consequences?



Be reasonable, show respect and don't be ruled by emotions that can change on minute by minute bases. Plus no one, no one can MAKE you feel anything.If you get hurt or upset over something it's because you allowed it. I may be able physically harm a person but there's no way I (or anyone) has the power to alter how you think or experience things, which includes emotions.



--Xzavier


COMMENTS

-



CryingDutchess
CryingDutchess
05:13 Dec 18 2008

Not true. Some men will push their mom down a flight of stairs and love their girlfriends to pieces without incident! Jussayin' *runs*





 

03:50 Dec 10 2008
Times Read: 952


"Matter Excitation and Propulsion from Tachyon Stream"



The primary field generator will be on the left side. It will contain an omni-directional propulsion system and large EM constrictors to shape the tachyon stream into a sphere.



The secondary generator will be 1/3 smaller and will serve as phase transistor it will also aid in the stability of the device.



The PFG will create a collection of tachyons which must be stored using magnetic constriction. These constrictor chambers will be of similar design as modern tokamaks.



When a ship enters the staging area a preliminary wave of tachyons will be release by both parts of the device creating an envelope around the craft. The external constrictors will bind the tachyons and will limit them to their lowest speed of c.



The secondary generator will release an axial barrage of EM and neutrino bursts. This will help phase the craft away from normal space-time. Once the tachyon field as reached it's peak concentration an -n mass field should be created around the craft.



This -n mass field will provide the final push out of normal space-time and allow the craft to float with/inside the tachyon field. Once the main sequence has been completed the craft must initiate it's own tachyon constrictor to enable proper propulsion.



Secondary sequence will consist of a release of the devices magnetic constrictors and will initiate craft propulsion by flooding the outer limit of the tachyon field with free roaming tachyons.



The craft will now be moving at or above the speed of light.



To stop propulsion the craft must release a large amount of electrons, n mass fields and then finally turn off it's tachyon constrictor.



For this to be efficient the craft should return to a 'gate' so the tachyons can be recycled. If travel is stopped outside of a 'gate' the tachyons will become free roaming and be lost.



--Just for you O Merry Christmas! :)


COMMENTS

-



atyourwindow
atyourwindow
04:08 Dec 10 2008

Reverse time, insofar as tachyons are concerned is, in reality, an irrelevant issue





Xzavier
Xzavier
04:12 Dec 10 2008

You're not reversing time silly boy :P Just making it irrelevant.





Oceanne
Oceanne
04:44 Dec 10 2008

Jumps up and down and claps hands~ Ohhh Zav! Thank you!!!!!!!!

Best Christmas EVER.





Oceanne
Oceanne
05:16 Dec 10 2008

There is a santa clause.:)





DuCroix
DuCroix
17:59 Dec 10 2008

I don't know, I liked my theory better, even if it could destroy the universe.





 

19:31 Dec 06 2008
Times Read: 984


--MGA "still assessing" impact of Bratz ruling: CEO--



LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – MGA Entertainment Inc is "still assessing" its next move, including whether to lay off staff, after a California judge barred the family-owned toy company from selling its popular Bratz doll, founder and Chief Executive Isaac Larian said on Thursday.



"Bratz is an extremely important part of our company and we are currently assessing the impact of this ruling," Larian told Reuters in an interview conducted by email.



Larian said MGA would appeal the order, issued late on Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson and stayed until next year, but was "open to any reasonable settlement" with rival Mattel Inc (MAT.N), which won rights to the $1 billion-plus doll line in a copyright infringement trial earlier this year.



"But, it was relayed to me that Mattel wants it all," he wrote.



A Mattel spokeswoman declined to "speculate" on whether the toy giant, which makes the Barbie doll, would sell dolls and other products impounded by court order or if it would discontinue the line altogether.



Mattel sued MGA and former Barbie designer Carter Bryant for copyright infringement a few years after Barbie began losing market share to Bratz, launched in 2001, and after its attempt at making an edgier doll, called MyScene, failed.



A California jury ruled in Mattel's favor on its claims that Bryant had invented Bratz while under contract to Mattel and had illegally sold the property to MGA.



A second jury considering damages awarded Mattel just $10 million of the nearly $2 billion in it sought in damages for copyright infringement. The panel also awarded Mattel $90 million for damages related to other claims.



Unresolved by both juries was which company could continue to make the pouty lipped, urban chic dolls beloved of young girls who are Barbie's target market.



Larson approved Mattel's motion to stop MGA from selling the dolls or using the Bratz name after court-ordered talks to work out a royalty scheme or other settlement failed.



On Thursday, Larian was mum about whether he and his legal team would approach Mattel about reopening those talks: "That's the job of the court appointed settlement officer," he said.



As to whether the company will launch another fashion doll, Larian said MGA was "currently considering our options."



(Reporting by Gina Keating; editing by Richard Chang)



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081205/bs_nm/us_mattel_larian



//



I wish the dolls weren't being sold because they look like whores and promote vanity, sexuality and the objectification of woman for kids 12 and under but this will do for now.



I really can't see why parents would spend billions on these things when Barbie is supposed to be the 'evil' doll. Learn how to say NO, keep their skirts longer than your local prostitutes and if you have kids you may wish to stop wearing clothes just like theres.



Geez, how hard is it to be decent in this world?


COMMENTS

-



DuCroix
DuCroix
19:53 Dec 06 2008

Well, judging by the toys we buy kids, just slightly easier than jumping to the moon with a pogo stick.





 

06:26 Dec 04 2008
Times Read: 1,014


Photobucket




Quantum foam, the stuff space and you are made of.



--"ON YOUR kitchen table are the following implements: a chainsaw, a wooden mallet and a pair of boxing gloves. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to use one of these tools to split an atom.



It is, of course, a ridiculous assignment, but it would sound like child's play to researchers studying quantum gravity. They believe that the very fabric of space-time is a seething foam of wormholes and tiny black holes a hundred billion billion times smaller than a proton. But the experimental tools available to test this idea are absurdly clumsy: the best particle accelerators can barely examine scales a million billion times larger.



"Many people have said it's going to be impossible to test quantum gravity, so there's no use even thinking about it," says John Ellis, a theorist at CERN, the Geneva-based European centre for particle physics. But, he says, it's too important to ignore. Quantum gravity is needed to describe the first instants of creation, when quantum fluctuations ruled the Universe, and it could even lead us to a full understanding of how our Universe works-the elusive Theory of Everything that will tie all the forces of nature together. "This is the grand theoretical challenge the 20th century has left physics to solve in the 21st century," says Ellis. "Even if it looks hopeless you should nevertheless think about it."



Astonishingly, it doesn't look hopeless any more. Since the beginning of this year, physicists have proposed a handful of foam-probing experiments that could shed light on quantum gravity. Against all the odds, they can now embark on a journey down to the lowest level of reality, where quantum mechanics and gravity meet.



Quantum mechanics describes how particles interact with each other to generate all but one of the forces in nature. So most physicists believe it must work for gravity, too. But how? The best description of gravity we have is Einstein's theory of general relativity, which says that what we feel as gravity is actually the effect of curved space-time. General relativity works beautifully for gravitational forces in the Universe, successfully predicting the existence of such outlandish objects as black holes.



But problems are looming, Ellis says. "We know there are inconsistencies in these theories. It's just a question of when the inconsistencies are going to show up in the data." The best solution would be to find the underlying theory from which relativity and quantum mechanics can be inferred.



There's no telling what insights such a theory would yield. Physicists struggling to marry Einstein with quantum mechanics have already made one startling discovery. In 1971, Russian physicist Yakov Zel'dovich guessed that black holes aren't truly black, but instead combine with quantum-mechanical fluctuations to emit photons and other particles. Stephen Hawking proved the idea three years later, and these emissions are now called Hawking radiation.



All fledgling theories of quantum gravity also make a more general and even weirder prediction: the structure of space and time is very different from the gentle curves predicted by general relativity. The American physicist John Wheeler realised in the 1950s that if you look at things on a scale of about 10-35 metres, quantum fluctuations become powerful enough to play tricks with the geometry of the Universe. Space and time break down into "fuzziness" or "foaminess". A spaceship that size could find itself negotiating virtual black holes, or getting sucked into one wormhole after another and tossed back and forth in time and space.



If you think this idea of a space-time foam sounds horribly vague, you're in good company. So do the researchers. "It's a very vague thing," says Chris Isham, a theoretician at Imperial College, London. "General relativity is about space-time, and quantum theory tends to involve quantum fluctuations in things. Therefore, if you talk about quantum gravity, there might be some sort of fluctuation in something to do with space-time. It's that sort of level of argument."



In the race to create a more substantial theory of quantum gravity, there are two main contenders. Abhay Ashtekar of Pennsylvania State University contends that space and time aren't fundamental properties of the Universe. Instead, they are supposed to emerge from a purely mathematical theory ("Beyond space and time", New Scientist, 17 May 1997, p 38). But impressive as the mathematical framework is, no one is sure how to pull physical realities, like space, time and gravity, from it.



Cat's cradle



The other idea is based on superstrings: minuscule loops or strings about 10-35 metres long, floating through space-time. Matter arises from specific kinds of vibration in these strings, just as notes are the result of certain vibrations of a violin string. There are a huge number of variants of the strings idea, but researchers believe that they are merely different versions of a single, all-encompassing structure called M-theory ("Into the eleventh dimension", New Scientist, 18 January 1997, p 32). This is physicists' favourite Theory of Everything, with the potential to unite all the forces of nature and explain the properties of every subatomic particle. But it is still in its infancy, and so far has little to say about how quantum gravity manifests itself in the Universe.



Giovanni Amelino-Camelia of the University of Neuchâtel in Switzerland decided not to wait around for the theorists to agree on what exactly is going on. Earlier this year, he published some calculations in Nature which imply that quantum gravity is accessible to experiments after all. If space-time is a frothing mess, he reasoned, the distance between two objects should always have some random fluctuations as the bubbles constantly form and burst. And by measuring the amounts of fluctuation, we might be able to rule out some of the theories-or even discover some real quantum foam.



So rather than the usual tool of fundamental physics-a superpowerful particle accelerator-what he needed was a good tape measure. The California Institute of Technology has just such a device. Their interferometer splits a laser beam in two, and bounces the resulting beams off two mirrors, each 40 metres away but in different directions (see Diagram). The reflected beams are then recombined, producing an interference pattern that reveals tiny changes in the paths they took to reach the mirrors. If the path lengths fluctuate, the interference pattern will fluctuate too-it will be "noisy".



Amelino-Camelia compared the [Detecting quantum foam] noise levels in the Caltech Detecting quantum foam interferometer with the noise that quantum gravity theories predict. So far, he reckons this experiment has seen off at least one approach to quantum gravity. Theories based on "deformed Poincaré symmetry" say that quantum mechanics distorts certain symmetries of space-time-its immunity to rotation, inversion and other similar changes. But it turns out that that would produce bigger random fluctuations than the Caltech system's noise limit, so Amelino-Camelia politely suggests that this approach is almost certainly wrong. This is no mean feat, as the fluctuations he's talking about are equivalent to a change of 1 metre in the diameter of the Universe.



That still leaves superstrings and the Ashtekar approach undamaged. But finally, quantum gravity theories are tethered on an experimental leash, and there are other plans in the making to help pin down this fuzzy foaminess. Last year, working with Amelino-Camelia and researchers from the University of Athens, Houston Advanced Research Center and Texas A&M University, Ellis suggested using gamma-ray bursts. These flashes of high-energy photons arrive at Earth from the other side of the cosmos, and if they have travelled through a space-time that is fuzzy, says Ellis, they should have become distorted. Roughly speaking, the shorter wavelength photons in the burst should arrive at Earth later than their long wavelength companions, because they fall down the microscopic holes in space-time more easily. Using today's gamma-ray detectors, it should be possible to see this effect. Unfortunately, the researchers are still working out exactly what a quantum gravity signature would look like.



Decay and transformation



Ellis has helped to develop yet another plan for unveiling quantum gravity, one first suggested in 1995. The delicate physics of neutral kaons, subatomic particles that exist for less than a millionth of a second, could be affected by quantum fluctuations in space-time. Kaons and their antiparticles (antikaons) decay and transform into each other, but they do it at very slightly different rates. Ellis believes that quantum gravity may affect-in a very small way-these decay and transformation rates. As with the gamma-ray bursts, predicting the effect precisely is still beyond the theorists, but it might be possible to isolate it in future particle accelerator experiments



While we wait for these experiments to mature, a new generation of interferometers could eliminate a few more theories. These interferometers are designed to search for another peculiar gravitational phenomenon: gravity waves. Although gravity waves have nothing to do with quantum gravity directly, they could still have a big impact on its theory-makers. When massive objects such as stars move very suddenly, general relativity says that they should send space-time ripples out across the Universe. Astrophysicists hope to see these gravity waves emitted by supernova explosions, or by black holes orbiting one another or even colliding.



The biggest new gravity-wave detector, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), is being built at Hanford in Washington State, and Livingston, Louisiana (two versions are needed to rule out the effects of seismic waves). As in the Caltech interferometer, laser light from a single source is split and sent down two perpendicular arms, and reflected by mirrors suspended at the end of each. But LIGO's arms are 4 kilometres long, and two more mirrors at the junction of the arms send the light back along the same path so the beams can bounce back and forth many times before recombining. A gravitational wave passing though this apparatus would change the lengths of the two arms by different amounts, and so change the interference pattern caused when the two light beams recombine.



When it is fully operational by 2002, LIGO will be the world's largest precision optical instrument. The device is so sensitive that, despite its massive scale, it should detect movements in the mirrors as small as 10-18 metres, or a thousandth of the diameter of a proton. VIRGO, a slightly smaller European interferometer, will have about the same sensitivity.



Amelino-Camelia says LIGO's noise levels will set new limits on quantum gravity. Mark Coles, head of the LIGO Livingston observatory, is unsure. "We don't have any operational experience as yet, so all the predictions of noise performance are simply extrapolations from the Caltech interferometer."



But even if that is true, there is a grander scheme to look forward to. LISA, the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna project, will consist of six spacecraft arranged in pairs at the corners of an equilateral triangle orbiting the Sun-an interferometer stretching over millions of kilometres. LISA is due for completion in 2015.



In the meantime, atom interferometry could provide yet another avenue for quantum gravity research. Ian Percival, a theoretical physicist at London University's Queen Mary and Westfield College, believes that atom interferometers, which replace laser light with a beam of atoms, should be able to detect fluctuations in the time element of the foam.



It's not just space that is beaten to a froth: time is also stretched and squashed, fluctuating by around 10 -44 seconds as the bubbles appear and disappear. Small, but possibly detectable, Percival says. According to quantum mechanics, atoms have a wave-like nature, so a single atom can be split into two separate waves and sent along two different paths. When the two atomic waves recombine, any difference in their "internal clocks" due to the effects of quantum gravity should destroy the atomic wave interference pattern.



Steven Chu of Stanford University and Mark Kasevich of Yale University have managed to separate atomic wave packets by 1 centimetre before recombining them. They saw an interference pattern. According to Percival, that could be interpreted in two ways. Either space-time fluctuations don't exist-in which case quantum gravity theories are in real trouble-or both paths experienced the same fluctuations. He favours the latter: the fluctuations could be "correlated" over these distances, he says. They might even spread from one place to another. As yet, however, no one really knows.



Few people believe that a satisfactory theory of quantum gravity is just around the corner. "It may be that the actual theory is so different from anything we know about that we are hundreds of years away from it," Ellis says. But now experiments are now becoming possible, things are looking up. Eventually we should narrow in on one true description of the fabric of the Universe. The apple, one might say, has fallen from the tree.--"



http://ldolphin.org/qfoam.html

COMMENTS

-



atyourwindow
atyourwindow
07:17 Dec 04 2008

horse pucky like your torsion fields lol





Xzavier
Xzavier
07:24 Dec 04 2008

I never said I fully believe the torsion field theory. As for quantum foam it's not some hair brained theory and has a lot of backing science.





DuCroix
DuCroix
16:25 Dec 04 2008

I think some of that actually made sense to me : O





 

06:28 Dec 03 2008
Times Read: 1,056


Before any of you start don't give me that "infinity plus 1" bull. It is impossible to add to infinity for by it's very nature infinity is all that can be at any and all moments. *coughs ayw*



There are an infinite number of universes and each universe has an infinite number of universes parallel to it's own. Each action has a potentially infinite outcomes and each outcome has even more infinite reactions. This is the reality in which we live.



Things are infinitely large and many are infinitely small as well. But how can there be infinite size when there was a beginning? How does the infinite become finite? We know that during inflation, after the Big Bang, the universe inflated faster than the speed of light and we know that those areas are still moving at the speed of light or more. It's easy to understand how something can go faster than light when you take relativity and the fact the light is a physical substance that is part of space-time into consideration.



But what about the infinite? All universes, regardless of their "home" dimension came from a point in both time and space. Does the infinite mean only that it is all of what currently has transpired? Or is it in it's truest extent, all things, all times and all places?



We are a universe parallel from another universe and we may have budded off from another, larger, universe. If this is so then we are not ourselves in the way we think. We are that "other universe" and they are the beginning or perhaps the end. When we look at the Big Bang we see only that we came into existence and it seems as though the BB came from another place, another universe. Or did the BB create all universes?



I have been thinking on this a very long time and the implications are astounding.


COMMENTS

-



atyourwindow
atyourwindow
06:33 Dec 03 2008

see that is where you are wrong and its hard for some to get their mind around temporal mechanics...there was no focal point of time and space at a beggining, as a mad scientist you should know this lol.....*hugs* what would i do without my xzavier to keep me entertained ? hehe





Xzavier
Xzavier
06:38 Dec 03 2008

Ah but there was a point in time, the moment time began. Time has a finite beginning in this universe, it's those others that have no "moments." Silly man :)





Beastt17
Beastt17
06:52 Dec 03 2008

The idea that there was a beginning is an assumption and contrary to many forms, variants and spin-offs of Big Bang theory.





Xzavier
Xzavier
06:56 Dec 03 2008

Assumption is a large part of logic. To my observations (reality) nothing existed prior to my birth however I assume that there was a creative force, be it my mother, god or a quantum singularity.



Poor example I know but I'm tired lol.





atyourwindow
atyourwindow
07:00 Dec 03 2008

time never "began" it always has been, the big bang was just another cycle of that.....yep i said it no beggining, hard to grasp that concept because of the human need for closure but its the law of ayw, i mean the universe lol





XxLadyDarkRaynexX
XxLadyDarkRaynexX
07:58 Dec 03 2008

Xzavier, the mad scientist of the family ... questioning the MIghty AYW......I'm gonna keep my opinions to my self.





Sinora
Sinora
08:37 Dec 03 2008

Can I give you a neck rub after all that thinking dear ?





atyourwindow
atyourwindow
09:20 Dec 03 2008

i might also add that infinity is 1 and not a set value that 1 can be added to.





Beastt17
Beastt17
10:03 Dec 03 2008

Plotting one's conjecture to align with demonstrated evidence is not pure assumption. It is evidentiary conjecture. Logic is what we are taught to be expected by the the events in the universe around us. It is a set of conclusions based on demonstrations, not just assumption.





DuCroix
DuCroix
18:15 Dec 03 2008

If there was a big bang maybe it is still going somewhere. Thereby creating universes so that there are always universes for any particular point in time. Makes time travel seem a bit less O.O





 

21:24 Dec 02 2008
Times Read: 1,065


This is a map, of sorts, to time and how it works. I've been working on the temporal sciences for several years now and it is one interesting study. In the coming days and weeks I'll have more about this image and time in general.






COMMENTS

-



atyourwindow
atyourwindow
00:05 Dec 03 2008

your theory of a secondary time line looks a lot like a diverted river around an exposed bedrock, is it possible that the outer area of the black hole loops on itself and the secondary timeline / new universe and primary time line "second phase" is really just an illusion or am i missing something here?





 

01:02 Dec 01 2008
Times Read: 877


The far flung corners of the universe are traveling beyond the speed of light.


COMMENTS

-






COMPANY
REQUEST HELP
CONTACT US
SITEMAP
REPORT A BUG
UPDATES
LEGAL
TERMS OF SERVICE
PRIVACY POLICY
DMCA POLICY
REAL VAMPIRES LOVE VAMPIRE RAVE
© 2004 - 2024 Vampire Rave
All Rights Reserved.
Vampire Rave is a member of 
Page generated in 0.0927 seconds.
X
Username:

Password:
I agree to Vampire Rave's Privacy Policy.
I agree to Vampire Rave's Terms of Service.
I agree to Vampire Rave's DMCA Policy.
I agree to Vampire Rave's use of Cookies.
•  SIGN UP •  GET PASSWORD •  GET USERNAME  •
X