lofgoernost
Muse
- Joined
- May 30, 2003
- Messages
- 510
It was probably Z'Tasre&qrt's degree in Ancient Proctology.
It was probably Z'Tasre&qrt's degree in Ancient Proctology.
RonSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 514
lofgoernost said:
Only if it was printed on sticky tape.........
Purple Tentacle
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 64
Ratman_tf said:
I have heard of it, but I didn't realise that it contained such ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Don't we base a major section of our scientific thinking on this mans work? Do YOU believe that travelling at the speed of light SLOWS DOWN TIME?!!? It just makes no sense. I guess I’ll have to read up on some Einstein, because to me time travel is completely impossible and to think that Einstein (and the scientific community) thinks these whacky ideas are FACT scares me.
Hexxenhammer
Malleus Malefactorum
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,122
Yes we do base a major section of scientific thinking on Einstein and Relativity. Sorry dude, no experiment has ever shown Relativity to be anything but correct. Just 'cause you don't understand it or its wacky doesn't mean it's wrong.Purple Tentacle said:
Purple Tentacle
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 64
Hexxenhammer said:
I don't want to argue that it's wrong without researching it first, i'll not be the next carlos.
I’ll be back. And I’ll be in the scientific section.
Purple Tentacle said:
I don't want to argue that it's wrong without researching it first, i'll not be the next carlos.
I’ll be back. And I’ll be in the scientific section.
Hell, that's a good place to be regardless.
Here's a link for you. Take note of the experiments done with muons and atomic clocks. It seems Einstein was on the money. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light.
http://patsy.hunter.cuny.edu/CORE/CORE4/LectureNotes/relativity/relativity4.htm
Wanna get wierder? You physically get shorter or 'squashed' in the direction of travel. You gain mass also.
If you tried to break the speed of light, you would be eternally running for a finish line that receded away from you. And it would take more energy than in the entire universe to get you that close.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Ratman_tf said:
Not from the travellers perspective you don't.
I thought this was settled a long time ago.
So currently we have these "aliens” using seemingly magical abilities to whisk people away through walls and locked door to their "Unidentified Flying Object" where strange sexual experimentation is conducted on them.
The answer to this mystery is in the PAST, but it is not time travel. One only has to go back to the infallible Medieval Christian church to learn that these are Succubi and Incubi!
We in the modern world are blinded to the spiritual truth, and misunderstand the true nature of things. We have been brainwashed to accept naturalism by the secular humanists that teach in our public school system, the fact that there is no naturalistic explanation, that these "aliens" are really demons, seems to have completely escaped everyone.
Well either that or the whole thing is silly, but where is the fun in that?
So currently we have these "aliens” using seemingly magical abilities to whisk people away through walls and locked door to their "Unidentified Flying Object" where strange sexual experimentation is conducted on them.
The answer to this mystery is in the PAST, but it is not time travel. One only has to go back to the infallible Medieval Christian church to learn that these are Succubi and Incubi!
We in the modern world are blinded to the spiritual truth, and misunderstand the true nature of things. We have been brainwashed to accept naturalism by the secular humanists that teach in our public school system, the fact that there is no naturalistic explanation, that these "aliens" are really demons, seems to have completely escaped everyone.
Well either that or the whole thing is silly, but where is the fun in that?
Purple Tentacle said:
Okay, okay, other folks have brough you up to speed on Einstein, but this part just made me chuckle.
It's hard to go slower than stopped. I'd call that a bottom limit.
by the way - nice choice on the Avatar. Maniac Mansion was one of my favorites... next to Zak McKraken and the Alien Mindbenders.
-Chris
Explorer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,516
Purple Tentacle said:
"WHAT >!?! How the hell does travelling quickly slow down time? What a load of crap. Can someone point me in the right direction where I can study up on this? Because if scientists or physicists are walking around believing this crap.....man are they in for a rude shock...IMO anyway.
And who says you can’t travel faster than the speed of light? Why couldn't a ‘spaceship' just keep accelerating? There is no limit to how slow something can go, and there is no limit to how FAST something can go. Sure you wouldn’t be able to SEE where you’re going, but when you get home the same amount of time would have passed for you and the entire universe. Time is the only constant.
Please, someone, prove me wrong."
You can buy an excellent good and simple read from Amazon used book section for about £2 or $3.50.
The book is called "Relativity for the Layman" by James Coleman (Penguin Books).
It is a simplified account of the History, Theory and Proofs of Relativity. It deals with all your problems that you have for the subject. Enjoy! Thoroughly recommended.
Regards
Explorer
"WHAT >!?! How the hell does travelling quickly slow down time? What a load of crap. Can someone point me in the right direction where I can study up on this? Because if scientists or physicists are walking around believing this crap.....man are they in for a rude shock...IMO anyway.
And who says you can’t travel faster than the speed of light? Why couldn't a ‘spaceship' just keep accelerating? There is no limit to how slow something can go, and there is no limit to how FAST something can go. Sure you wouldn’t be able to SEE where you’re going, but when you get home the same amount of time would have passed for you and the entire universe. Time is the only constant.
Please, someone, prove me wrong."
You can buy an excellent good and simple read from Amazon used book section for about £2 or $3.50.
The book is called "Relativity for the Layman" by James Coleman (Penguin Books).
It is a simplified account of the History, Theory and Proofs of Relativity. It deals with all your problems that you have for the subject. Enjoy! Thoroughly recommended.
Regards
Explorer
Purple Tentacle
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 64
Explorer said:
sounds perfect. thanks Explorer.
btw, as if there is no limit to how slow u can go! "stopped" doesnt come into it, it is how long it take to go form A to B.
Explorer---Thanks for the reference. But do you happen to know off hand if in Relativety, if going forward or backwards in time is a 'perspective' thing, or if it is a 'reality' thing?
Einstrein, or no Einstein...it seems hard to fathom that if you were blindfolded on earth (so the speed of light factor doesn't influence what you are seeing), and then put in a space ship and sent deep into space exceeding the speed of light, and returned at this speed (still blindfolded), and you got out of the space ship and went home (still blindfolded) and you took off your blindfold....my guess is that you neither went forward or backwards in time to any big degree.
My reasoning is thus: Light travels at 186,000 mps. You traveled 372,000 miles round trip at twice the speed of light. I say that time went forward by 1 second. (If you went at the speed of light, it would have been 2 seconds. Now suppose your traveled distance was 1000 times greater. You would arrive home in 500 seconds (about 8 minutes), instead of the 16 minutes that you would have if you went at the speed of light.
So WHAT that your travel took less time. So then... what is the significance of THIS? It be like comparing taking one trip on a train...then retaking the same trip by jet. What does this have to do with 'going forward' or backward in time?
As far as *I* see it, no matter how fast you go, time would go forward. If you traveled at even a nearly infinite fast speed (say zillions of miles per second)...time would still have gone forward...a teensy...but forward nonetheless. Why would this affect you, or your thinking about what the time SHOULD be, when you got back. If you knew you were traveling fast, wouldn't you simply expect to arrive super fast?
I just don't get this stuff. Even when I read what doctors of science/astronomy say about this (like in Discover magazine), it sounds like gibberish. I just can't get my mindset to see it different from what I posted above.
And...to actually go forward or back in time, has nothing to do with 'perspective'. It would be a reality thing.
Einstrein, or no Einstein...it seems hard to fathom that if you were blindfolded on earth (so the speed of light factor doesn't influence what you are seeing), and then put in a space ship and sent deep into space exceeding the speed of light, and returned at this speed (still blindfolded), and you got out of the space ship and went home (still blindfolded) and you took off your blindfold....my guess is that you neither went forward or backwards in time to any big degree.
My reasoning is thus: Light travels at 186,000 mps. You traveled 372,000 miles round trip at twice the speed of light. I say that time went forward by 1 second. (If you went at the speed of light, it would have been 2 seconds. Now suppose your traveled distance was 1000 times greater. You would arrive home in 500 seconds (about 8 minutes), instead of the 16 minutes that you would have if you went at the speed of light.
So WHAT that your travel took less time. So then... what is the significance of THIS? It be like comparing taking one trip on a train...then retaking the same trip by jet. What does this have to do with 'going forward' or backward in time?
As far as *I* see it, no matter how fast you go, time would go forward. If you traveled at even a nearly infinite fast speed (say zillions of miles per second)...time would still have gone forward...a teensy...but forward nonetheless. Why would this affect you, or your thinking about what the time SHOULD be, when you got back. If you knew you were traveling fast, wouldn't you simply expect to arrive super fast?
I just don't get this stuff. Even when I read what doctors of science/astronomy say about this (like in Discover magazine), it sounds like gibberish. I just can't get my mindset to see it different from what I posted above.
And...to actually go forward or back in time, has nothing to do with 'perspective'. It would be a reality thing.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
scribble said:
What about going into reverse?
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
scribble said:
And what about going slower and slower yet never actually precisely stopping? (ie it only "gets to" zero in an infinite amount of time)
Purple Tentacle said:
It does sound perfect. I may pick it up myself.
While velocity is often measured by taking the time to go from point A to point B, I assure you that stopped does in fact equal 0 velocity.
(Why does that sound like the introduction to a first year calculus word problem?)
-Chris
Interesting Ian said:
What about it? That would be much like the story of the man who could move halfway towards his goal with each step - he'd never actually reach it.
That sounds even MORE like a first year calculus problem. Odd that you posted it while I was making my previous comment...
-Chris
Interesting Ian said:
Two posts! Now you're making me respond in blocks too. Heh
What about it? Velocity is an absolute measurement unless you have some reason to bring vectors in.
Edit to add: Even if you do bring vectors in, that wouldn't change the fact that stopped is the absolute minimum velocity - it would just make it easier for someone who didn't understand math to make it look that way.
-Chris