Faster Than Light Travel

luvhumility said:
this is a good quote from the article> "If the man couldn't see, something else must be keeping his body clock running smoothly. "It was a 'eureka moment' for me," Czeisler remembers. "It changed my worldview of how light resets the human clock." http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/09.25/01-light.html

It is my intent to encourage new thinking in this area of what our perception of time is, how our bodies perceive it and the mechanisms that our bodies use to determine “time”.

That was my original intent. Does this blue light study spur any new thinking or Ideas in anyone?
Click to expand...

So this has nothing to do with physics but physiology?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Not to sure about that, my point is that it is very minor as it is so small an effect relative to the total.

As for how an acceleration of one object is viewed by other reference frames, not sure. With relativistic length contractions, time dilations and velocity addition, I really don't know.

Actualy I am sure it does not, you can accelerate at 1 g for ever, and no one will ever see you reach the speed of light, so it can not work that way. with F being dp/dt it is reletivistic momentum that is the key here.
Click to expand...

I think you somewhat misunderstood me or I expressed myself poorly. I'll rephrase my question:

ponderingturtle said:
But those all have nothing to do with reletivistic velocities, if you are moving at 200,000,000 m/s 9.8 m/s^2 is nothing you will really notice.
Click to expand...

Doesn't 1g feel the same to you no matter how fast you are going?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So this has nothing to do with physics but physiology?
Click to expand...

Yep. Light affects the body's internal clock.

luvhumility would like us to believe he/she is some sort of genius, and that this somehow ties into time in the physical sense.

This is, of course, because luvhumility has yet to show any of this knowledge he/she claims, and, as I supsected, completely misrepresents the article and mis-applies it's findings.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So this has nothing to do with physics but physiology?
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose. If one wishes to seperate and catagorize everything as seperate sciences. I think unification through correlations brings more physical developments. imho. But the fact that it (blue light)> say an approx. 470 ish nanometer wavelength source changes our own internal clock makes me again wonder how far our perceptions are from reality. This perception issue seems to plague our forefathers and permiate of the errors in the sciences of the past. (although we learn from these).

I ask about this blue light issue because of the red shift / blue shift and doppler issue being so close to home in our perception of things. I think there might be more going on than meets the eye here. correlations we may not be aware of.

what that is? I am not sure. But definitely noteworthy!
 
Random speculation with absolutely no support (nor any solid, or even slightly mushy, chain of logic to connect the ideas) is in no way noteworthy, except as an example of human psychology.

If you can explain in what way blueshift correlates to the resetting of the internal clock, then you might actually have something interesting.

Until then, you might as well speculate on "What if C-A-T really spells dog?"
 
Huntsman said:
Random speculation with absolutely no support (nor any solid, or even slightly mushy, chain of logic to connect the ideas) is in no way noteworthy, except as an example of human psychology.

If you can explain in what way blueshift correlates to the resetting of the internal clock, then you might actually have something interesting.

Until then, you might as well speculate on "What if C-A-T really spells dog?"
Click to expand...

ok, I agree. I will try to correlate better! more math needed!
 
Huntsman said:
Interesting.

Do you know what a GUT is? Are you familiar with what it really means?

I'd like to see your answer. The question "What is a GUT?" can be answered in 8 words, 11 if you want a complete sentence, and 13 if you avoid acronyms.

From your comment above, I can confidently deduce the answer is "no".
Click to expand...
:talk035:
Must... resist.. urge to.. answer... question.

BTW, my answer had 11 words, just like you said. :)

What? :D
 
we are all a lil kooky!

Huntsman said:
Interesting.

Do you know what a GUT is? Are you familiar with what it really means?

ya, since i was about 16.

I'd like to see your answer. The question "What is a GUT?" can be answered in 8 words, 11 if you want a complete sentence, and 13 if you avoid acronyms.

From your comment above, I can confidently deduce the answer is "no".
Click to expand...
sorry, mine is longer... does that mean i am "WRONG"?

where did you learn it? a book like me? google? yo mama?
cmon folks lets lighten up a little!!

A theory of elementary forces that unites the weak(gravity), strong (atomic), electromagnetic (maxwellian), and gravitational interactions into one field theory and views the known interactions as low-energy manifestations of a single unified interaction. (this def has some errors)...But how would we know we have not fingered it out yet! (I added the parens myself)

here's another def I do not quite agree with but here goes...

Attempts to unify three fundamental interactions—strong, electromagnetic, and weak—with a postulate that the three forces, >>>>with the exception of gravity, <<< can be unified into one at some very high energy. ???

This one above is a little kooky too! how can you leave out ANYTHING!!

ohhh boi! can we throe out weight and density too???

This was a google answer for fear on my part of further beatings here...my own would have been similar, or maybe novel. But then novel thoughts tend to get beaten on here. or stolen (maybe this is good, maybe not)>? I know nothing anymore!!! I AM A COMPLETE STUPID DUMB ASS WHO KNOWS NOTHING, according to the jref community of almighty skepticks...!

I am not the first outside the box thinker people have beat on. If one opens ones mind psychology, philosophy and the other science/arts are all really inseperable. (go ask albert and newton) Our perception of the world/universe around us depends on it all!

you can argue with Albert and other great thinkers about this subject but I would not suggest it...Unless your also ready to get a Jref beatin!!

I still like this thread! and all you kooks like me!

lh
 
luvhumility said:
ohh weight, is that mass and density? WTF over! ohh know here comes another beatin!!

lh
Click to expand...
Don't see any need for beatings, or the excessive use of exclamation points. :)

Weight is more accurately described as the pull between two objects, and is dependent on their relative mass. You, while containing the same mass either here or on the moon, will weigh differently on each because the moon has about 1/4 the mass as the Earth.

Density is how much the mass is packed into a certain space. A one inch cube of lead has a lot more mass than a one inch cube of carbon, and would weigh a lot more as a result.
 
Last edited:
I less than three logic said:
Don't see any need for beatings, or the excessive use of exclamation points. :)

Weight is more accurately described as the pull between two objects, and is dependent on their relative mass. You, while containing the same mass either here or on the moon, will weigh differently on each because the moon has about 1/4 the mass as the Earth.

Density is how much the mass is packed into a certain space. A one inch cube of lead has a lot more mass than a one inch cube of carbon, and would weigh a lot more as a result.
Click to expand...

Fine business. so does weight and gravity pull affect density? And if so does the increase in density displace less "space" so that other matter in the macro (weak/at a distance) sence of the universe must move in (or away) to compensate for such density increase? (as other objects come to fill the void)...does this make any sence at all?? I may need to rewrite this mess...
maybe this is already well known?

lh
p.s. I will try and reply/read later, I must go to prep to move many thousands of pounds of gear many miles .
 
I less than three logic said:
Weight is more accurately described as the pull between two objects, and is dependent on their relative mass. You, while containing the same mass either here or on the moon, will weigh differently on each because the moon has about 1/4 the mass as the Earth.
Click to expand...

Personaly I much prefer a definition of normal forces as the weight, then it works with such terms as weightless and such.
 
luv:

You aren't "beaten" for novel ideas.

You're "beaten" for presenting useless speculation as if it were some gem of wisdom.

You're "beaten" for pretending to understand physics (and denigrating those who do) while making elementary mistakes like not understanding what redshift is or mislabelling the weak nuclear force as gravity.

You're "beaten" because at this point, you've shown yourself to be a liar and have little to no intellectual honesty. You're throwing up "ideas" because you want them to be true, and then insult those of us here who have some knowledge, who have put time and effort into learning and understanding these topics, when we tell you that your "ideas" run directly contrary to experiment.

You're "beaten" because you're a poser, and so far have shown not only a decided refusal to learn, but also a dedication to spread your ignorance to others.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Who is measureing the acceleration?

To a certain extent yes, but remember you never view yourself as moving
Click to expand...

You are moving that 200 000 km/s and measuring yourself accelerating 1g. Or were you talking about something completely different?
 
.13. said:
You are moving that 200 000 km/s and measuring yourself accelerating 1g. Or were you talking about something completely different?
Click to expand...

You are feeling an acceleration of 1g from the object that is moving by you at 200 000 km/s.
 
luvhumility said:
I've worked on plenty of science and physics in real life, worked with many a Phd, (chem, thermo, electrodynamicists, etc) and such... and made correlations where some thought none existed...
lh
Click to expand...

hehe -I see Huntsman was kind enough not to be snarky about this post. :p ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom