Nothing like the Gamera song to amuse me while I’m stuck at home with a head-cold on a Friday night…reminding me of all those times when I was a loser high school kid stuck at home on Friday nights watching MST3K…aww, now I’m depressed too 
Anyways, I wouldn’t waste any more time on Meta’s musings, since it’s clear even he knows they’re junk.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Meta said:
This is not a good way to begin here, Meta. In fact, it’s a good way to END your stay here.
RexDart said:
And methinks it’s time for you to remember to let the moderators do the moderating. There is a little link in every message to “Report this post to a moderator.” Use it rather than posting about who or what you think needs a warning.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
II
ooIIo
Meta
GOLDEN MEAN : phi = 1.618033989
[[(10^(4*bl/ht))/[[COS^-1((sqrt5 - 1)/4))*4]^2]] ^i ] +1 = 0
COS^-1 in degrees
stoidi
And your point?
Well, sort of backwards and garbled a bit. It says “You are a real stupid S.O.B” basically. Not a good thing to be saying at any age, let along as a newbie. In GD anyhow.
Oops, I missed something. Hangs head in shame.
So since your first backwards insult didn’t get past us, it stands to reason that the second one will? Good thinking, that.
Yeah. Hell, even Gomer Pyle knew better than that.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Folks, did you all miss the part of my warning where I noted that you should leave the moderating to the Moderators? Yes, it was an insult. Yes, he should have been reported. No, you should not all be discussing, in this thread, what is or is not an insult and who did or did not post it.
He’s gone. Move along now. Nothing to see here.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
David B,
If you should choose to retire this thread permanently by closing it, I certainly would not complain.
It has reached the end of its comedic value.
I can relay my own predictions with regards to teleportation using my own language. Im not sure what is meant by quantum or really much of this - so maybe this can help decrypt it for those who speak in these terms.
I was thinking about 5 years ago about the refrection of imaging upon a lake surface when looking for wallpaper backround for my desktop (in the computer). I started wondering what would happen if all of the images were run through multiple layers of glass. It occured to me that if the angles were perpendicular with glass surface correspondants, that two shadows would likely be created from a light source beaming upon this glass surface.
The way I pictured it was that a glass would be setting on top of a table with a glass top and that a light shining down on the glass table would create two shadows (I was trying to figure out why the reflectivce property exists in the lake).
Except, I figured that these two shadows would have strikingly different properties. The one shadow which corresponded directly with the sun’s angle would be a ‘single shadow’ in the sense that we normally think of shadows. The other shadows would be a refractive shadow from the surface of the glass table-top.
The first shadow would show the glass;
The second shadow would show the glass and the shadow (reflection) of the glass upon the table with the glass as well.
O/O | O
O
----O
–L-
L is the light-source
Directly above the “L” is the glass table surface with the glass setting upon it marked by the O, the O benieth it represents the glass’ reflection from the glass table.
The series of symbols above the table with the glass represent the shadow(S) cast by the light source. One of the shadows is a standard shadow which only shows the glass and the table.
The second shadow is the refractive shadow which shows the glass, the table and the reflection of the glass in the table. All three are being replicated. I was thinking that this would be true, and that applying a frequency of that color circle (red, yellow, blue I think it is) as a filter through the lightsource would cause the original image to become the shadow and the refractive shadow to become imbued with the properties of the original image. It struck me that teleportation requires energy to maintain, as the location change is being forced only so long as the ‘moving color circle’ was moving. I also realized that such a force much equally be acting upon us at all times as well.
I started thinking about the Star Trek representation of teleportation and realized that it is misleading, as it’s not a one-shot thing; the enrgy of the location change must be maintained - it is a process that endures so long as the teleportation occurs; as the refractions are being inverted. There is no “Flip a switch and once teleported, flip the switch back” The switch would need to stay flipped, and return would only occur when it switch was turned off.
The issue with locating these shadows seems to be a matter of mapping perspectives through coordinate graphings so as to modulate which angles the ‘tables’ have and which angle the light has; so as to render the teleportation as whatever plave you desire it to occur. Those were my thoughts on the subject anyhow; I’m pretty sure they are correct, however, I’m not sure how they relate to the OP here.
-Justhink
It occured to me that teleportation; particularly of the ‘‘matter’ phase’ (if that’s understood? to represent moving substance instead of light) where radio waves would be used to transport the energy. I’m thinking that the transmition of radio waves is inefficient with regards to catching up with the light refraction, so there most be a means to encode radio transport within the light refraction itself; but that leads to another extraction of abstraction (which requires an exponential growth in detail correspondence).
The point is that teleportation requires quite a bit of energy, as a constant flow is required to maintain the state of teleportation.
-Justhink
Justhink, the Great Elucidator, has stepped in to clarify the situation!!
Uh … maybe you should encapsulate this in a {CODE} block, so that it will be in a monospace font. Like so:
O/O | O
___O___
----O
--L-
No, on second thought, that doesn’t look sensible either. Just what are you trying to draw a picture of here, anyway?
The solid line is of the glass table-top.
^^^That line^^^
O
---------O
The dashes are being used because spaces are deleted and the reflection of the glass on the table-top would be placed back at the margin if I didn’t use them. This picture represents the Table, the glass and the reflection of the glass seen inverted from the table-top of glass.
Set a 'glass (like a water drinking glass) on a glass surface and notice the reflection of the glass (the water drinking glass) upon the glass surface of the table top. Understand?
My theory, is that when light hits the table, you will see a shadow (duh) of the table and the glass sitting upon the table.
But that the light is also (necessarily) refracting the image that you see on the table, so that there is another shadow always being created. This shadow should represent not just the table and the glass, but should represent the table, the glass and the reflection of the glass upon the table.
L = lightsource
This is what we normally see:
(I’m using dashes again to move the lightsource from the margin)
----------------|O (This is the shadow we’re used to seeing)
O (this is the ‘original’ table)
---------O
----L (this is the light source)
The reflected image of the glass is not seen on the standard shadow, we simply see the structure of the table which holds the glass top as a shadow and the glass setting upon the table as a shadow ‘floating’ (because the glass is transparent).
What I was thinking is that there must be an additional shadow being cast each and every-time the light hits a surface, which records the mirror image into the shadow framework. This would be what I’m calling the refractive shadow.
----O/O-------|O (This is the shadow we’re used to seeing, and also the refractive shadow - the one closest to the margin is the refrective shadow)
O (this is the ‘original’ table)
---------O
----L (this is the light source)
My hypothesis is that if a color wheel is applied to the light source, the color should be effectively transferred to the refractive shadow instead of the original table, and the original table should take on the properties of the refractive shadow.
This, I believe explains why the idea of teleportation can exist (as ideas cannot exist without being able to code for them or else reality would collapse).
Teleportation would require a steady application of energy to maintain the teleportice state (inverting the frequency of the innitial light source).
The teleportation would occur where the refractive shadow is calculated to be (not that I know these laws of refraction mathematically! I don’t think they’d be difficult to learn though.)
I don’t want to make this too verbose by applying more and more about how I think solid state matter is represented here (the term itself is misleading). That is what I believe to be the case, as I don’t think something can come from nothing. I believe this is precisely where these ‘somethings’ are coming from in this instance. I think there are necessarily two shadows being created when light hits something.
-Justhink
Huh?
As we used to say in my day, far out.
Too bad it makes no sense whatsoever.
Justhink trying to explicate Hiyruu’s ideas?
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Could we perhaps get bjOrn in here to help translate?