SUPRMAN said: TheVoid said: Again, I'm not talking about experiencing something in a different space-time. That's not what I'm talking about here. The show I saw wasn't addressing relativity at all. I'm talking about experiencing time through our own brains. For example, when you flash a bunch of cards with a cartoon drawing, you're brain is not seeing page 1, then page 2, then page 2, etc. You're brain is seeing a drawing move on the page--we experience time that way. Certain birds precieve the fluttering of pages differently than we do. Their brains are just designed to see the flashing of the paper differently--more quickly. It's the same time we're both experiencing, but we perceive things in that time differently. A nat would fly in front of the bird and the bird would immediately snatch it---a sloth, however, wouldn't even register it. Same time--brains are wired differently to experience that time. You'd have to see the show to understand. It was fascinating. I never realized before then that animals perceive time differently. I agree that they experience time differently. People can also experience time differently from other people. But the experience doesn't affect the passage of time. I never said it did. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
tinaz said: TheVoid said: OK, let's pretend that vivid's penis is moving from his city to yours. As his penis picks up speed it starts to swell. If you want his penis to be at your doorstep immediately--then his penis would swell to well larger than the size of the earth, and he'd need a TON of gasoline to get to your doorstep. ... That TOTALLY makes sense now! You'd think the damn nuns would of put it in terms I would understand You crazy!! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Twin paradox!
Astronaut shoots off towards some distant planet at some superfast speed close to the speed of light and then comes back to Earth. We on earth are watching. From our point of view (if we could see the astronaut inside his spaceship from earth), we'd see things moving slower for him... he'd be in slow motion... So by the time he came back, less time would have passed for him than for us. We'd have aged 50 years, he'd have aged maybe 5 months. BUT!!!! Motion is relative! From the astronaut's point of view, he's not moving. We on Earth are moving away from him. So the same logic applies from his point of view. So when he gets back to earth, he'd have aged 50 years, and we'd have aged 5 months. How can this be???? http://en.wikipedia.org/w...in_paradox | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
crazydoctor said: Twin paradox!
Astronaut shoots off towards some distant planet at some superfast speed close to the speed of light and then comes back to Earth. We on earth are watching. From our point of view (if we could see the astronaut inside his spaceship from earth), we'd see things moving slower for him... he'd be in slow motion... So by the time he came back, less time would have passed for him than for us. We'd have aged 50 years, he'd have aged maybe 5 months. BUT!!!! Motion is relative! From the astronaut's point of view, he's not moving. We on Earth are moving away from him. So the same logic applies from his point of view. So when he gets back to earth, he'd have aged 50 years, and we'd have aged 5 months. How can this be???? http://en.wikipedia.org/w...in_paradox What I want to know is if we see him moving so damned slow, could we just send a ship towards him to catch up to him from our perspective? Cause from our perspective it would take him weeks to reach the moon even, and we could definitely catch up to that . I know it's stupid question, but seriously--something is fucked up about that! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheVoid said: NDRU said: I don't think he is proposing to get around it, in the OP he says only forward time travel will be possible--the trip to Jupiter scenario you mentioned earlier The spaceship will not end up in the past, it will end up in the relative future. Ahhhhh.. Then that is very possible within the next few generations. You could do that with an ion drive, though the 30 minute scenario might not be possible. What really depresses me is that according Bryson (who got his material from actual physicist and scientists), a human being will never, EVER reach the edge of our own solar system if he travelled in a spaceship originating from earth. It would take, according to him, given our current possible scenarios with the technology we can imagine, thousands of years. I'm more optimistic than that, but Bryson didn't make this stuff up--he researched it and only eloquently deliver the message by real scientists. Our solar system? Or did he say our galaxy (or to the next star)? I'm pretty sure we already sent something outside of our solar system. But yeah, it's pretty depressing. I have little hope that we'll meet aliens in our lifetime without some insane breakthrough like wormholes because stars are just too damn far apart. Maybe it's good, they'd most likely find our brains delicious if we did meet. [Edited 5/12/10 12:34pm] My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Actually, NDRU, in the Ender series by Orson Scott Card, Ender Wiggen travels from planetary system to planetary system, and as a result, only 10 years has moved for him when on earth at least 70 years had passed by. As a result, his savings account and investment accounts swelled. He was a mega rich by the time he stepped off his spaceship.
YAY TIME TRAVEL! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheVoid said: crazydoctor said: Twin paradox!
Astronaut shoots off towards some distant planet at some superfast speed close to the speed of light and then comes back to Earth. We on earth are watching. From our point of view (if we could see the astronaut inside his spaceship from earth), we'd see things moving slower for him... he'd be in slow motion... So by the time he came back, less time would have passed for him than for us. We'd have aged 50 years, he'd have aged maybe 5 months. BUT!!!! Motion is relative! From the astronaut's point of view, he's not moving. We on Earth are moving away from him. So the same logic applies from his point of view. So when he gets back to earth, he'd have aged 50 years, and we'd have aged 5 months. How can this be???? http://en.wikipedia.org/w...in_paradox What I want to know is if we see him moving so damned slow, could we just send a ship towards him to catch up to him from our perspective? Cause from our perspective it would take him weeks to reach the moon even, and we could definitely catch up to that . I know it's stupid question, but seriously--something is fucked up about that! The ship isn't moving slowly! But time is flowing slower for the people inside the ship! Imagine a television screen shooting off into space at a high speed... now imagine the television screen is showing some movie in slow motion... that's how it is... | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheVoid said: Actually, NDRU, in the Ender series by Orson Scott Card, Ender Wiggen travels from planetary system to planetary system, and as a result, only 10 years has moved for him when on earth at least 70 years had passed by. As a result, his savings account and investment accounts swelled. He was a mega rich by the time he stepped off his spaceship.
YAY TIME TRAVEL! yes, but he also had Jane managing his investments My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: TheVoid said: Ahhhhh.. Then that is very possible within the next few generations. You could do that with an ion drive, though the 30 minute scenario might not be possible. What really depresses me is that according Bryson (who got his material from actual physicist and scientists), a human being will never, EVER reach the edge of our own solar system if he travelled in a spaceship originating from earth. It would take, according to him, given our current possible scenarios with the technology we can imagine, thousands of years. I'm more optimistic than that, but Bryson didn't make this stuff up--he researched it and only eloquently deliver the message by real scientists. Our solar system or our galaxy (or to the next star)? I'm pretty sure we already sent something outside of our solar system But yeah, it's pretty depressing. I have little hope that we'll meet aliens in our lifetime without some insane breakthrough like wormholes because stars are just too damn far apart. Maybe it's good, they'd most likely find our brains delicious if we did meet. We sent voyager 1 and 2 passed pluto (at that time a planet). But it's still in the keiper(sp?) belt, and will not reach the ort cloud (the true end of our solar system) for about 10,000 years. We are nowhere even close to the edge of our solar system, which is almost one light year from the sun. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: TheVoid said: Actually, NDRU, in the Ender series by Orson Scott Card, Ender Wiggen travels from planetary system to planetary system, and as a result, only 10 years has moved for him when on earth at least 70 years had passed by. As a result, his savings account and investment accounts swelled. He was a mega rich by the time he stepped off his spaceship.
YAY TIME TRAVEL! yes, but he also had Jane managing his investments You read the books!?!?!?!? Oh NDRU, you had me at 'hello' | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheVoid said: NDRU said: Our solar system or our galaxy (or to the next star)? I'm pretty sure we already sent something outside of our solar system But yeah, it's pretty depressing. I have little hope that we'll meet aliens in our lifetime without some insane breakthrough like wormholes because stars are just too damn far apart. Maybe it's good, they'd most likely find our brains delicious if we did meet. We sent voyager 1 and 2 passed pluto (at that time a planet). But it's still in the keiper(sp?) belt, and will not reach the ort cloud (the true end of our solar system) for about 10,000 years. We are nowhere even close to the edge of our solar system, which is almost one light year from the sun. gotcha, I was only thinking about Pluto My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: TheVoid said: We sent voyager 1 and 2 passed pluto (at that time a planet). But it's still in the keiper(sp?) belt, and will not reach the ort cloud (the true end of our solar system) for about 10,000 years. We are nowhere even close to the edge of our solar system, which is almost one light year from the sun. gotcha, I was only thinking about Pluto The coolest thing about what we're seeing is that the keiper belt has a 'cliff' where the planetoids and comets just all of a sudden stop. In all our models it should continue for quite some time getting a bit denser. Clearing could be an indication of a massive object out there doing this. But it's so far out and so dark, we just don't know and need more data. I really wish I was smart enough to be a scientist of some sort. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheVoid said: NDRU said: yes, but he also had Jane managing his investments You read the books!?!?!?!? Oh NDRU, you had me at 'hello' I'm on #3 right now My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheVoid said: NDRU said: gotcha, I was only thinking about Pluto The coolest thing about what we're seeing is that the keiper belt has a 'cliff' where the planetoids and comets just all of a sudden stop. In all our models it should continue for quite some time getting a bit denser. Clearing could be an indication of a massive object out there doing this. But it's so far out and so dark, we just don't know and need more data. I really wish I was smart enough to be a scientist of some sort. yeah I kind of wish I'd been an astronomy major, though musicology does seem a bit more practical My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: TheVoid said: You read the books!?!?!?!? Oh NDRU, you had me at 'hello' I'm on #3 right now Xenocide is pretty good (are you following the original books or the ones that also follow Bean, the "Shadow of the Hegemen"?" I'm assuming you're following the original and reading Xenocide. I liked Xenocide. Children of the Mind I actually didn't like very much--too much going on in it. But, the 'bean' series which follows the ender series (even in timeline) are said to be just as good as book 1 and book2 (my favorite book was Speaker for the Dead--I've yet to read the ones about bean). | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheVoid said: NDRU said: I'm on #3 right now Xenocide is pretty good (are you following the original books or the ones that also follow Bean, the "Shadow of the Hegemen"?" I'm assuming you're following the original and reading Xenocide. I liked Xenocide. Children of the Mind I actually didn't like very much--too much going on in it. But, the 'bean' series which follows the ender series (even in timeline) are said to be just as good as book 1 and book2 (my favorite book was Speaker for the Dead--I've yet to read the ones about bean). yeah I'm on Xenocide. I have heard the series doesn't totally hold up, so I am not sure if I'll continue after this one But yeah Speaker was really great, the best of the three that I have read. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: TheVoid said: Xenocide is pretty good (are you following the original books or the ones that also follow Bean, the "Shadow of the Hegemen"?" I'm assuming you're following the original and reading Xenocide. I liked Xenocide. Children of the Mind I actually didn't like very much--too much going on in it. But, the 'bean' series which follows the ender series (even in timeline) are said to be just as good as book 1 and book2 (my favorite book was Speaker for the Dead--I've yet to read the ones about bean). yeah I'm on Xenocide. I have heard the series doesn't totally hold up, so I am not sure if I'll continue after this one But yeah Speaker was really great, the best of the three that I have read. You should read Children of the Mind, the fourth book just to see how things end up. But I warn you---he REALLY takes a dramatic shift in the fourth book. Each book is completely different from the one before. I was shocked at Speaker for the Dead in the first 1/3 of the book because it was nothing like ENder's game. By Xenocide, I knew he'd taken another gear shift and actually enjoyed the curveballs. But by Children of the Mind, I was sort of weary of the plot---he throws ALOT at you and in order to end the story. The bean series I'm told is very good, on par with Ender's Game--I just haven't been able to pick the books up and start them outside of reading the first two chapters of the 'bean' book. Bean appears to be just as fascinating as Ender and the story was great--but my life kind of got hectic when I attempted it and never went there. Plus I'd be fascinate to see what your take is on the fourth book. How are you liking the third book? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheVoid said: NDRU said: yeah I'm on Xenocide. I have heard the series doesn't totally hold up, so I am not sure if I'll continue after this one But yeah Speaker was really great, the best of the three that I have read. You should read Children of the Mind, the fourth book just to see how things end up. But I warn you---he REALLY takes a dramatic shift in the fourth book. Each book is completely different from the one before. I was shocked at Speaker for the Dead in the first 1/3 of the book because it was nothing like ENder's game. By Xenocide, I knew he'd taken another gear shift and actually enjoyed the curveballs. But by Children of the Mind, I was sort of weary of the plot---he throws ALOT at you and in order to end the story. The bean series I'm told is very good, on par with Ender's Game--I just haven't been able to pick the books up and start them outside of reading the first two chapters of the 'bean' book. Bean appears to be just as fascinating as Ender and the story was great--but my life kind of got hectic when I attempted it and never went there. Plus I'd be fascinate to see what your take is on the fourth book. How are you liking the third book? I like Xenocide, but not nearly as much as Speaker. Speaker presented a whole new world, and Xeno just continues the story. But it's very good, still. He's a very creative writer, but I just read Empire which is part of his newest series and it came across like The Bourne Identity or something. Interesting, but basically a kick ass action story. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
didn't some scientist say that time travel is possible through the 'coffee bean theory'(youtube it if you'd like to know more'
he wasn't discredited either ''now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, a fanatical criminal'' | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
oh
hell naw. Yall did not just let this thread die. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheVoid said: oh
hell naw. Yall did not just let this thread die. It started to get a little esoteric, for me. Lemme know when you get back to bad puns and Prince jokes. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
P.S. Wasn't Xenocide one of those bullshit, NPG Music Club releases? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
P.P.S. As existence, itself, is subjective, it is ergo an impossibility to definitively say whether or not one can "travel" through "time" (themselves, relative concepts).
In other words: | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ace said: P.S. Wasn't Xenocide one of those bullshit, NPG Music Club releases?
E=MC^2 was just a high-so extension of 1+1+1=3 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Efan said: Whether time exists on the physical level or not, would that really affect our ability to travel through it the way Hawking is suggesting? There are lots of things that don't "exist" in and of themselves in the universe, but they do "exist" in the sense that we use them as a measure or gauge. In that sense, we could make a trip through what we perceive as time, right?
i disagree with hawkings that time travel can somehow be accomplished through a 'wormhole' at the center of a black hole. imo, that makes no sense. a black hole, like it's opposite the supernova, is an annihilative environment. i doubt anyone could survive being sucked into that massive gravity sinkhole. but i've been thinking. imo time does not 'flow', nor 'move' nor actually exist. so, imo traveling through time is not possible. however change does exist. assuming that 'change' leaves "quantum tracks" in the universe (if only in the form of radiation emitted at the time of change?) maybe it could be possible to use a kind of 'quantum' leap to jump from one point in the track to another. assuming time does not exist, then everything that ever happened and everything that ever will happen are right here, right now. it might just be a matter of figuring out the how of leaping into a specific quantum track, where an event has either ocurred, or not occurred. okay. sorry, that's all i got | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
XxAxX said: Efan said: Whether time exists on the physical level or not, would that really affect our ability to travel through it the way Hawking is suggesting? There are lots of things that don't "exist" in and of themselves in the universe, but they do "exist" in the sense that we use them as a measure or gauge. In that sense, we could make a trip through what we perceive as time, right?
i disagree with hawkings that time travel can somehow be accomplished through a 'wormhole' at the center of a black hole. imo, that makes no sense. a black hole, like it's opposite the supernova, is an annihilative environment. i doubt anyone could survive being sucked into that massive gravity sinkhole. but i've been thinking. imo time does not 'flow', nor 'move' nor actually exist. so, imo traveling through time is not possible. however change does exist. assuming that 'change' leaves "quantum tracks" in the universe (if only in the form of radiation emitted at the time of change?) maybe it could be possible to use a kind of 'quantum' leap to jump from one point in the track to another. assuming time does not exist, then everything that ever happened and everything that ever will happen are right here, right now. it might just be a matter of figuring out the how of leaping into a specific quantum track, where an event has either ocurred, or not occurred. okay. sorry, that's all i got Actually according to Dr. Pamela Gay on Astronomy Cast (a podcast), if you throw anything into a wormhole you destabilize it and it ceases to be a wormhole. But I'm assuming Hawking is way above my head and has thought this through to the point where my simplistic understanding isn't enough to discredit him forsure. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheVoid said: XxAxX said: i disagree with hawkings that time travel can somehow be accomplished through a 'wormhole' at the center of a black hole. imo, that makes no sense. a black hole, like it's opposite the supernova, is an annihilative environment. i doubt anyone could survive being sucked into that massive gravity sinkhole. but i've been thinking. imo time does not 'flow', nor 'move' nor actually exist. so, imo traveling through time is not possible. however change does exist. assuming that 'change' leaves "quantum tracks" in the universe (if only in the form of radiation emitted at the time of change?) maybe it could be possible to use a kind of 'quantum' leap to jump from one point in the track to another. assuming time does not exist, then everything that ever happened and everything that ever will happen are right here, right now. it might just be a matter of figuring out the how of leaping into a specific quantum track, where an event has either ocurred, or not occurred. okay. sorry, that's all i got Actually according to Dr. Pamela Gay on Astronomy Cast (a podcast), if you throw anything into a wormhole you destabilize it and it ceases to be a wormhole. But I'm assuming Hawking is way above my head and has thought this through to the point where my simplistic understanding isn't enough to discredit him forsure. blackholes are constantly sucking things into them, entire galaxies, in fact. yet, they continue to remain in existence.... edited - i see you said wormholes, not blackhole.... [Edited 5/13/10 10:30am] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Wouldn't it be disappointing if we met aliens and the only difference between us was that they had ridges on their foreheads and talked about "honor" every other sentence? My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: Wouldn't it be disappointing if we met aliens and the only difference between us was that they had ridges on their foreheads and talked about "honor" every other sentence?
It would be even more diappointing if they were all exactly like us. If that's the case, please make them all be really hot - no ugly aliens. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: NDRU said: Wouldn't it be disappointing if we met aliens and the only difference between us was that they had ridges on their foreheads and talked about "honor" every other sentence?
It would be even more diappointing if they were all exactly like us. If that's the case, please make them all be really hot - no ugly aliens. lucky for you, I think Klingons like rough sex! My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |