if they were faster than light then wouldn't you think that they would be more than a smidgen (iota) faster than light.

John3760 and Chris,
Thanks guys. Thanks for being patient and for being just a little open-minded. I know i have not given you guys the full proof yet, but i just can't do that until i have sufficient scientific evidence built up to back-up my case.

Daddio and Tullio,
Today, the laws of physics say nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Today science would tell us that the speed of light is 3x10^8 m/s in a vacuum. But thats the bit thats about to change. The figure 3x10^8 m/s in a vacuum is wrong. Science today, because of Einstein, would say the speed of light is a "Universal constant". In other words, the speed of light does not change in the vacuum of space. But what they will figure out in time is thats the bit thats wrong. The speed of light is NOT constant in the vacuum of space, its speed changes. They just haven't figured it out yet. But i know why it happens.

John :)

---

I am referring to experimental data, just confirmed in a video on www.repubblica.it by Sergio Bertolucci, who is the scientific director of CERN. He warns that the result must still be confirmed by independent laboratories.
Tullio

---

"They haven't landed yet!"...

But the Chinese have kindly painted a landing target for them:


Mysterious sat-pic China desert markings

The grids of white lines in China's Gobi desert that have got the world's conspiracy theorists in a lather for a week, are actually...

... Since the 65ft-wide white line patterns were spotted on Google Earth, it has been speculated that they were anything from missile testing sites to alien writing. ...


That has just got to be artificial and hence a sign of intelligence!


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

2. Quantum gravity;?

Now I became a little curious? Anyone knows more about that?

Anyway, I will try making a Google search for these words.

Found one result: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

So my first question is then: If the fundamental laws of physics are the weak force, the strong force and the electromagnetic force and the fourth one (which until now has not been incorporated into the first three ones, or maybe the opposite way), gravity.

Why are these three fundamental laws of physics (now) being considered being part of quantum physics? I first wrote 'fundamental laws (now) being considered' and added 'of physics', by the way.

Can the same be applied to the laws of gravity as well?

By the way, will the Mars Science Laboratory, Curiosity, which according to the Original Poster (OP) of this thread is an automobile-sized rover that NASA is launching soon, be able to detect advanced civilizations that may exist in space?

Probably no. It is not suited for that particular type of task.

2. Quantum gravity;?

[Snip]..
Why are these three fundamental laws of physics (now) being considered being part of quantum physics? I first wrote 'fundamental laws (now) being considered' and added 'of physics', by the way.

Can the same be applied to the laws of gravity as well?

musicplayer,
You sound a bit confused, but thats ok, the discussion of quantum gravity is very confusing for the best scientists.

Its like this; "Classical physics" or classical mechanics is the area of science that discusses simple physical effects of large objects that we can see with our eyes. But then there is the other area of science called "Quantum mechanics" which specifically deals with really tiny atomic effects and the wave-particle nature of matter itself.

Quantum mechanics is very confusing and can be counter intuitive. Its strange science to try to understand. Summing it up in one sentence, you could say that matter at its very tiniest acts more like a wave that a solid particle. Same thing happens with light, or electromagnetic radiation.
See Quantum mechanics; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Unless you have some basic understanding of Quantum mechanics, you will never understand the theories people put forward for Quantum gravity. Its a very complex topic.

John.

---

To answer your question music player. The current attempt in modern physics to come up with a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is to marry Newton's and Einstein's theories with Quantum mechanics. That is come up with one theory that explains both the large and the small.

The most promising work at the moment is Quantum Loop Gravity which has kind of taken over from string theory. I remember attending a lecture at Bell Labs in Holmdel New Jersey 25 years ago where it was stated that the GUT would soon be fully worked out by using string theory.

On other topics.
The standard model will be verified when the Higgs Boson announcement comes along.

Remember that physicists create convenient fictions in describing the very small world. The best example of this is the Electron in the Bohr model. Remember that a wave is a disturbance in a field, Nothing actually travels--just like the "wave" in a football stadium or in a rope tethered at one end. The photon is a disturbance in the electro-magnetic field in free space. The electron is a disturbance in the electric field.

Gravity waves will soon be verified by a space-borne interferometer. I suppose that there will be a "graviton" declared as the force carrier. It will actually be a disturbance in the fabric of space itself.

This discussion probably belongs in the non-SETI discussion board--somehow we got off topic here.

Yes, definitely off topic. By the way, thanks for that, Mr. Rothamel.

I notice the following from reading through other threads.

Apparently, the pulses being returned by the Seti@home client may warrant some interest. Definitely a spike count of 30 appears in the result quite often.

But the same does not happen for the gaussians and the pulses.

If no gaussians are thought to warrant any particular study, when could you possibly make a different assumption when it comes to the pulses?

Every so often I am thinking that the gaussian is the curve derived for the spikes and pulses in a task.

But the pulses in some cases are more complex on their own. Still there is no match between such a pulse and the corresponding gaussian in the same task.

Two different things, or just two parts of the same thing?

All the four elements in a task are supposed to have a minimal threshold warranting an interest. One specific number for each of the four. At least some 6 for gaussians and 14 for triplets, I guess. Anyway, the number (count) will do as well.

In one instance, I noticed a gaussian count of 19. Also pulse count could be as high as 20 as well.

Can you deduce a possible signal only by looking at the pulses? Or would that rather be premature?