Elons Little Plan

[DIY-HP-LED]

unusual restraint coming from you!

Ya gotta have handles to climb that wall! Gravity is not a force, neither is time and they both only work in one direction. Invent an antigravity machine and you invent time travel too.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Ya gotta have handles to climb that wall! Gravity is not a force, neither is time and they both only work in one direction. Invent an antigravity machine and you invent time travel too.

there is no proof that either are interrelated...or that they aren't...any assumptions at this point are invalid, in the extreme.

 

[cannabineer]

Ya gotta have handles to climb that wall! Gravity is not a force, neither is time and they both only work in one direction. Invent an antigravity machine and you invent time travel too.

No; I don’t think so. At least I hope not! Time travel as we think about it is probably as impossible as FTL in normal space.

 

[cannabineer]

i was thinking more along the lines of a linear accelerator, or a centrifugal arm launcher for unmanned cargo....

both have the disadvantage at having to reach orbital speed in the lower atmosphere. The deceleration at max Q would be fierce.

Even so, some loons are playing with a centrifugal launcher in New Mexico.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

there is no proof that either are interrelated...or that they aren't...any assumptions at this point are invalid, in the extreme.

Einstein begs to differ!

 

[cannabineer]

Einstein begs to differ!

how possibly? He had no theory of gravity.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

how possibly? He had no theory of gravity.

General relativity, special relativity didn't, but he gave us some tantalizing clues about space/time. We obviously don't have all the answers in physics, perhaps not even close, but one thing science does do, is constrain possibilities, or probabilities if ya wanna go quantum.

 

[cannabineer]

General relativity, special relativity didn't, but he gave us some tantalizing clues about space/time. We obviously don't have all the answers in physics, perhaps not even close, but one thing science does do, is constrain possibilities, or probabilities if ya wanna go quantum.

does not contain any theory of gravitation.

To expand: Newton had no theory of gravitation either. What he did is formulate a mathematically precise law of gravity.

The distinction is this: a law describes what the thing does; a theory describes how or why the thing does the thing. Newton’s laws, and Einstein’s extension of them, are laws, not theories.

You’ll often read Newton’s law called a theory, even by those who ought to know better. It’s a misnomer.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

We obviously don't have all the answers in physics

We don't have any...all we have are more questions...
gravity and time could be deeply inter related, or they could be two distinct and discrete processes...and we don't have anything like proof of either.
We can't even reliably quantify either.

 

[cannabineer]

We don't have any...all we have are more questions...
gravity and time could be deeply inter related, or they could be two distinct and discrete processes...and we don't have anything like proof of either.
We can't even reliably quantify either.

let alone a model

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

does not contain any theory of gravitation.

To expand: Newton had no theory of gravitation either. What he did is formulate a mathematically precise law of gravity.

The distinction is this: a law describes what the thing does; a theory describes how or why the thing does the thing. Newton’s laws, and Einstein’s extension of them, are laws, not theories.

Quantum gravity is a theory that grapples with the mechanism, not the effects. We are discussing the effects when we speak of space/time and getting off the earth in a rocket. We don't even know if dark matter exists or what most of the universe is made of, yet.

 

[cannabineer]

Quantum gravity is a theory that grapples with the mechanism, not the effects. We are discussing the effects when we speak of space/time and getting off the earth in a rocket. We don't even know if dark matter exists or what most of the universe is made off, yet.

Quantum gravity is speculative. Scientists (the literate ones; some are shockingly bad at language) reserve the term theory for something more established, e. g. evolution via natural selection.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Quantum gravity is speculative. Scientists reserve the term theory for something more established, e. g. evolution via natural selection.

So is the Higgs field and Higgs Boson, but they give Nobels out for it.

 

[cannabineer]

So is the Higgs field and Higgs Boson, but they give Nobels out for it.

the natural-science Nobels are awarded for experimental work, not for theory. Einstein’s Nobel was for the photoelectric effect, not for relativity. The Higgs has experiment to back it.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

The only correlation Einstein mentions is that the closer to light speed one goes, the slower relative time passes for that one observer.
correlation does not imply causation.

 

[cannabineer]

The only correlation Einstein mentions is that the closer to light speed one goes, the slower relative time passes for that one observer.
correlation does not imply causation.

It’s (oversimplified) the law of gravity extended into the fast. Newton described the slow limit.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Quantum gravity is speculative. Scientists (the literate ones; some are shockingly bad at language) reserve the term theory for something more established, e. g. evolution via natural selection.

Generally, when someone wins a Nobel for it like relativity or quantum mechanics, it is taken as a theory at least in terminology, Nobels tend to lean towards the more pragmatic and concrete examples of science as well as the leading edges. We have competing theories of reality, one for the large-scale universe, Newton for everyday use and quantum theory for the small. All describe aspects of a yet undiscovered understanding, assuming we are equipped to understand it at all.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

the natural-science Nobels are awarded for experimental work, not for theory. Einstein’s Nobel was for the photoelectric effect, not for relativity. The Higgs has experiment to back it.

True, my bad, but they do award nobles for more than experiments, for the theories that underpin them too and are proven by them.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Generally, when someone wins a Nobel for it like relativity or quantum mechanics, it is taken as a theory at least in terminology, Nobels tend to lean towards the more pragmatic and concrete examples of science as well as the leading edges. We have competing theories of reality, one for the large-scale universe, Newton for everyday use and quantum theory for the small. All describe aspects of a yet undiscovered understanding, assuming we are equipped to understand it at all.

and this validates your original statement how?

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

and this validates your original statement how?

Which one? About antigravity?