What do you think of string theory?

[QUOTE=Saitoku]See? I'm not the only one here that had a horrifying wake up call. Mine involved about a half liter of vodka the night after getting my wisdom teeth out. :eek:

I rarely even get drunk after that.[/QUOTE]
you guys suck i smoked like 10 bowls on friday and had like 7 shots of jack.....i just sat and chilled and made out with my girlfriend. im so good at life.

[QUOTE=irishslappop]you guys suck i smoked like 10 bowls on friday and had like 7 shots of jack.....i just sat and chilled and made out with my girlfriend. im so good at life.[/QUOTE]
:lol:

You are one badass mother****er, Irish.

You're like a white Shaft.

[QUOTE=Saitoku]What do you think of string theory?[/QUOTE]
well acually, im not to keen on it. the fact that it require something like 16 additionall dimentions to even exsist is a little over the top......but then again when columbus said the world was round everyone said it was over the top. i guess. but still. im a specialist in the area of light speed and stuff. i love that ****

[QUOTE=Saitoku]:lol:

You are one badass mother****er, Irish.

You're like a white Shaft.[/QUOTE]
:lol: believe me i have my horror stories too lol.
like jaded too much liquer and not enoug food in my tummy :upset:

[QUOTE=irishslappop]well acually, im not to keen on it. the fact that it require something like 16 additionall dimentions to even exsist is a little over the top......but then again when columbus said the world was round everyone said it was over the top. i guess. but still. im a specialist in the area of light speed and stuff. i love that ****[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I wouldn't be too surprised if we find out in the next 10-25 years that we're just dead wrong on about 80% of the physics we know. How about the Pioneer anomaly? And by the laws of physics a bumblebee shouldn’t be able to fly at all. Something is wrong with the way we're looking at things.....

hey all, how yas been?

[QUOTE=primus_55]hey all, how yas been?[/QUOTE]
Hey, man.

A lot has changed since you've been gone. In fact, Cods is Supermod of the entire forum. Also, the casual is reserved entirely for talk about science and sock puppets.


Just kidding. How you doin?

[QUOTE=Saitoku]Yeah. I wouldn't be too surprised if we find out in the next 10-25 years that we're just dead wrong on about 80% of the physics we know. How about the Pioneer anomaly? And by the laws of physics a bumblebee shouldn’t be able to fly at all. Something is wrong with the way we're looking at things.....[/QUOTE]
yeahthat **** s really crazy, i dont understand and there is just so much knowledge that is beyond us or has yet to be discovered.

easy question (easy answer too)
if one of two twins is traveling 75% of the speed of light and for half a year and travels back to earth at the same speed, how much older will his twin be relitive to the time on earth.
1 year older

Hard question ( crazy answer)
if you instantly traveled the acually speed of light for .00000000000000000001 seconds. how far and how long would you have traveled relitive to someone on earth?

infinate distance for infinate time :amaze:

[QUOTE=primus_55]hey all, how yas been?[/QUOTE]
DUDE!!here have you been!!!....oh germany, saw thread. what the hell were you doing there lol? thought u lived in australia.

[QUOTE=irishslappop]yeahthat **** s really crazy, i dont understand and there is just so much knowledge that is beyond us or has yet to be discovered.

easy question (easy answer too)
if one of two twins is traveling 75% of the speed of light and for half a year and travels back to earth at the same speed, how much older will his twin be relitive to the time on earth.
1 year older

Hard question ( crazy answer)
if you instantly traveled the acually speed of light for .00000000000000000001 seconds. how far and how long would you have traveled relitive to someone on earth?

infinate distance for infinate time :amaze:[/QUOTE]
You know, I'm willing to bet that it's actually possible to travel faster than the speed of light. But the fact that we know next to nothing about light keeps us from understanding in what ways that sort of thing would be possible.

or even better!!!!
wrap you mind around this!!!
relative to someone on earth, the graph of the universe, with distance on all axes, would be huge, even drawn to an extreme scale it would be gigantic (acually infinately big but lets not go there) relitve to light. the graph wouldn;t exsist because relitve to someone on earth light travels an distance instantly. :amaze: wooooooowwww

[QUOTE=irishslappop]or even better!!!!
wrap you mind around this!!!
relative to someone on earth, the graph of the universe, with distance on all axes, would be huge, even drawn to an extreme scale it would be gigantic (acually infinately big but lets not go there) relitve to light. the graph wouldn;t exsist because relitve to someone on earth light travels an distance instantly. :amaze: wooooooowwww[/QUOTE]
Yeah.... our tiny human brains can't comprehend that sort of thing.... we'd better start working on our AI. ;)

Let me ask you - any interest in nanotechnology?

[QUOTE=Saitoku]You know, I'm willing to bet that it's actually possible to travel faster than the speed of light. But the fact that we know next to nothing about light keeps us from understanding in what ways that sort of thing would be possible.[/QUOTE]
well, the only way something can travel faster then light is if it was already doing it. because there is no possible way to make something go the speed of light because when something is going light speed (this is all acording to einstein) it becomes infinately dense and would require an infinate amount of energy to proppel it. but i think there is something that is faster then light too.
oh were you here when me and gav were talking about when a couple of scientists a couple of years back passed a beam of light through super heated cesium gas and it wnet 300 times faster!!!! omg :amaze:

[QUOTE=Saitoku]Yeah.... our tiny human brains can't comprehend that sort of thing.... we'd better start working on our AI. ;)

Let me ask you - any interest in nanotechnology?[/QUOTE]
any of that stuff is cool, all i know about nano stuff is that it is like...microscopic, my dad is reading a michael chriton book about it right now called prey im going to read it next, its about self aware nano machines. you know anything about nanotech? if ya do please tell :thumb:

Oh yes. I've done quite a lot of research on it.

If you want an extremely interesting read I could paste you my essay that I wrote on it last semester. I’d take you about 5 minutes to read. Interested?

yeah sure!! (sweet)

Nanotechnology: Reaching for the Stars, Flirting with Disaster

Nanotechnology, still in its infant stages, is already being hailed as the next great industrial revolution. It could very well usher in a golden age in humanity where hunger, work, economic structure (yes, this is a good thing) and possibly war are abolished forever. It has the potential to possibly slow, or stop the aging process, granting us immortality, if we chose it. At the same time it posses one of the greatest threats humankind has ever faced if it is used as a weapon. In the following, I will discuss the pros and cons and the hopes and fears for nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology is among a slew of next-generation technologies that have emerged during the past 25 years with the computer age. Perhaps the largest technological advance since the home computer, perhaps the greatest technological leap in human history, nanotechnology was first conceived by Richard Feynman and was introduced by him during a speech in 1959 at an American Physical Society meeting (Newton 6). He spoke of “machines that were programmed to make exact copies of themselves, but at one half their original dimensions.” (Newton 6)

Though Feynman is credited with conceiving the vision, it is K. Eric Drexler who is credited with founding nanotechnology as a field of science. Drexler “invented the idea of nanotechnology without having ever heard of Feynman’s speech or his ideas. Drexler proposed that “the general principals of genetic engineering might also be applicable to other kinds of molecules. He began to consider putting together any structure at all, one atom or one molecule at a time” (Newton 8).

After reading Feynman’s speech, Drexler published his formal paper “molecular Engineering: An Approach to the Development of General Capabilities for Molecular Manipulation” in 1981. In that same year, incidentally, the door the nano-world was opened by Heinrich Roher and Gred Binning, who invented the scanning tunnel microscope, which would magnify objects up to 10 million times, giving the world the first looks at individual molecules and atomic structures (Absenger 35). In his paper, Drexler laid the foundation for his theories on nanotechnology. General nanotechnology would consist of three primary nanodevices: Assemblers, which would move atoms and molecules into place, disassemblers, which would take structures apart, and nanocomputers, which would issue commands to the assemblers and disassemblers (Newton 8). According to Drexler’s theories it would be possible to synthesize anything using a “bread-box assembler” technology – a device containing thousands of nanostructures which using raw materials such as sand or coal dust could produce any number of common household items from hairbrushes to frying pans to stereos or even food (Newton 25-26). It is this same technology that has the potential to end poverty and hunger, as well as allowing everyone the world over to live in luxurious comfort. Money and gold would be worthless, as would any precious stone. There would be no economy. The reason I propose that this technology would have the potential to end war is on this premise: If you already have everything you want, then why would you attack someone else?

The first effect of nanotechnology we may see in our world will most likely be medical. Nanodevices could be programmed to look for abnormal DNA, such as cancerous cells or damaged blood vessels and repair them immediately. They could even look for aging cells to repair, slowing or even stopping the aging process. Indeed, we may well be able to extend or lives tenfold with this technology, and possibly achieve immortality (Newton 27).

There is no doubt that nanotechnology could do great things for humanity. But, scientists warn that breadbox assemblers could just as easily be used to create weapons as they could any other item, or worse yet, a malicious nanobot that liquefies the vital organs of its victims. Foresight.org sights these types of scares as being responsible for the U.S.’s apparent lack of interest in certain nanotechnologies (Foresight 9). We must also be wary of the possibilities that our governments may try to keep nanotechnology from reaching the public. This could quite possibly be the most frightening scenario that the advent of nanotechnology presents. Governments could use tiny video cameras and microphones deemed “smart dust” to monitor our every move and perhaps our every thought, if psychological science allows us to correctly interpret brainwaves.

We must also not rule out the possibility that governments would be able to actually modify the structure and chemical balances of our minds if this technology was abused. Newton notes “oppressive governments will find molecular nanotechnology a powerful weapon of social control. It should eventually be a simple matter to disperse nanobots into the atmosphere with the ability to monitor the location, conversation, and behaviors of any or all citizens (31). And continues to note “The same nanobots that used to sense and repair cell damage will also be able, according to Drexler, to ‘tranquilize, lobotomize, or otherwise modify entire populations.’ To those who question whether such extreme possibilities at all exist, Drexler noted that ‘the world already holds governments that spy, torture, and drug; advanced technology will merely extend the possibilities’” (qtd. in Drexler 1986 176)

Is it true that nanotechnology could turn us into a race of immortal slaves for the bidding of world leaders? The prospect is frightening. However, the possibility of more benign negative side effects of nanotechnology should not be ruled out, either. A Southern Methodist University study recently conducted by John Bucher linked synthetic nanoparticles to brain damage in fish. (Hempel)

Whether nanotechnology will prove to be the savior technology of the human race or its enslaver, we cannot see. Perhaps none of the visions or concers Drexler has will ever come to pass. Still, he has asserted that it is important to discuss and understand these consequences while the technology is still in the dawn of its era. (Newton 31). I believe that the widespread lack of education and awareness on the topic could cause frightening consequences, but at the same time, they may stunt the technology from every growing beyond the stages it has reached now. To say at this point whether continuing research into the field of molecular nanotechnology is wise is beyond me, and I can only hope to see the outcome of the situation.


Works Cited
Newton, David E. Recent Advances and Issues in Molecular Nanotechnology.
Westport : Greenwood P, 2002.

Hempel, Jessi, Seger, Ira “Nanotech: Is it Nasty or Nice?”
Business Week 5 March 2004 : 67

Absenger, Axel “Nanotechnology – Inner Values.”
Environmental Engineering 16.2 (2003) 35-38.

Foresight Institute: Preparing for Nanotechnology. 20 January 2004.
4 May 2004 <http://www.foresight.org/press.html>.

There are committees that have been formed in anticipation of the inception of the technology, actually.

I've got a real fascination with nanotech. That and cold fusion.

:smoke:

**** good ****, thats awesome dude. what did you get on the paper?
if that whole nano thing acually ends up working.......oh boy.....were in for a change.

[QUOTE=Saitoku]There are committees that have been formed in anticipation of the inception of the technology, actually.

I've got a real fascination with nanotech. That and cold fusion.

:smoke:[/QUOTE]
cold fusion is freakin impossible, with the laws of thermo dynamics, there is just no way. just no way. *shake head* if they pull it off.......**** who cares!!! the world is ending in 2014 anyway, the aztecs predicted it!! :lol:

Oh, I think I got a 95 on that paper, from a professor that doesn't give A's up easily, though.
Actually, I was the only one in the class that got an A in the class as a whole. He almost never gives out A's for the course. :naughty:

nice, im still a junior in high school :upset:

[QUOTE=irishslappop]cold fusion is freakin impossible, with the laws of thermo dynamics, there is just no way. just no way. *shake head* if they pull it off.......**** who cares!!! the world is ending in 2014 anyway, the aztecs predicted it!! :lol:[/QUOTE]
:lol:

Alright, I've gotta head to bed.

Nice chatting with you, man. I've gotta say, intelligent conversation is hard to come by, (at least if you want to avoid the snobs in the political forum) but you've been a pleasure to talk to.

yep, good times c yalater man. :thumb:

Hey All

Why on earth haven't I been able to log in for the last few days?

Yeah.

G'night.

:smoke:

And what the hell is going on with my avatar?

[QUOTE=Rollo47]Hey All

Why on earth haven't I been able to log in for the last few days?[/QUOTE]
MX got roxx0red by a hacker or something. check out the anouncement, doesnt say much acually come to think of it. :(

once again, i kill the casual. w00t.
night MX :smoke: