User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 17 to 24 of 25

Thread: Nasa Secret Photo Album

  1. #17
    nepenthes_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spring Feild Ohio
    Posts
    3,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't really care, he seems like an idiot to me. The plant Insect Evolutions, 7 spirit energy's. I'm not watching Japanese anime am I?

    I would like to see the photos up close. Not some shotty cam corder!

  2. #18
    Composter losfreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Katy,Tx
    Posts
    247
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The video im doubting, but the ideas are very real..

    Quote Originally Posted by Outsiders71 View Post
    Actually that's half true. Traveling forward in time is possible as proved by Einstein. Traveling backwards in time is not theoretically possible. But we're not talking major leaps here, more like macro seconds unless you can move close to the speed of light...

    "It is 100 percent possible to go back in time, and I shall explain how. First thing you need to know is Einsteins limit, NOTHING can travel faster than the speed of light. (although today we have lasers that actually do travel faster than light so I'm not sure how this theory is still holding true...) But anyways assume NOTHING can travel faster than light. Picture a train on a RXR track moving along the tracks at say the speed of light. On top of this train is a tall tall pole that just so happens to be as tall as the distance light can travel in one second. And along this pole is a beam of light traveling up and down, at the speed of light. Now what this creates is a rudimentary clock.

    The light travels up the pole in one second, and down the pole in one second. Now picture someone riding on the train. As they watch the light travel up and down the pole they will indeed see that the light takes 1 second to travel up and down the pole. But what about to an observer of the train passing by? Due to the fact that the train is moving horizontally, and the light is traveling up and down vertically, to an observer of the train, the light beam is actually traveling on an angle, along the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Now according to Einstein's universal limit that light traveling up and down the pole, even though it is now traveling further along the hypotenuse, it cannot be traveling faster. Therefore as the equation D=RT we all learned in high school states, if the distance is greater, the rate is the same, the time in fact has to increase. Therefore to an observer the light travels up and down the pole not in 1 second, but lets say 1.5 seconds.

    Now lets apply this to time travel. If a space craft leaves earth traveling at approximately the speed of light, time for them will in fact go slower than the time for someone on earth. Therefore if 5 years past in the space craft, say 10 years will have passed on earth, hence Planet of the Apes, a movie based on not so far fetched facts. If you are interested in this kind of stuff do a wiki for the "twin paradox" , I personally find it very interesting. "
    Quit reading my mind!

  3. #19
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by losfreddy View Post
    Now lets apply this to time travel. If a space craft leaves earth traveling at approximately the speed of light, time for them will in fact go slower than the time for someone on earth. Therefore if 5 years past in the space craft, say 10 years will have passed on earth, hence Planet of the Apes, a movie based on not so far fetched facts. If you are interested in this kind of stuff do a wiki for the "twin paradox" , I personally find it very interesting. "
    Time going slower is not the equivalent of traveling into a past time reference frame. You have just explained traveling forward in time.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  4. #20
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You are talking about Einstein’s theory of special relativity, and the twin paradox. What you have left out in the theory Is that while the second twin may have had time go faster for them, they can meet up with the other twin at any time because time dilation of the fast moving twin does not affect the space around them.

    To quote the wiki site you refered to
    n 1911, Paul Langevin made this concept more vivid and comprehensible by his now-iconic story / thought experiment of the twins, one of whom is an astronaut and the other a homebody. The astronaut brother undertakes a long space journey in a rocket moving at almost the speed of light, while the other remains on Earth. When the traveling brother finally returns to Earth, it is discovered that he is younger than his sibling, that is to say, if the brothers had been carrying the clocks mentioned above, the astronaut’s clock would be found to be lagging behind the clock which had stayed with the Earth-bound brother, meaning that less time had elapsed for the astronaut than for the other. Langevin explained the different aging rates as follows: “Only the traveller has undergone an acceleration that changed the direction of his velocity”. According to Langevin, acceleration is here "absolute", in the sense that it is the cause of the asymmetry (and not of the aging itself).
    Time may have elapsed slower for the fast moving twin time around him but normal space stays constant. Therefore, while that may be moving time forward a bit faster than normal, time travels forwards all by itself, and your speed will only effect how fast it goes relative to you. You wont pop out and suddenly see dinosaurs, bacause nothing in the entire thing has anything to do with going backwards, just slower. Slower does not = backwards
    that makes no logic

  5. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    there are no laws of physics ruling out the possibility of time travel
    The laws of physics aren't 100% - they don't seamlessly cover everything, and develop serious errors in extreme situations. Physicists know this, which is why they're searching for a Grand Unified Theory which doesn't have this problem. Note that all of the examples involve the impossible (rotating the universe), the infinite (and infinitely big ____), or wormholes (which have never even once been observed and we have no proof they even exist at all).

    Finally, even if time travel is possible, it didn't happen to this guy's buddy. If it had, he'd have more to show for it than a bunch of faked dinosaur photos.

    I'm by far a scientist from NASA, but wouldn't two moons, that close to the earth flood the entire planet twice a day from the tides? Life forms with lungs can only drown once a day comfortablly.
    Yes, yes they would.

    Because scientists are safely tucked away in their headquarters while Johnny Joe from the Trailer Park is working a dead-end job on his night shift outside a power plant quietly tucked next to a forest.
    Headquarters? Since when do scientists have headquarters?

    It is 100 percent possible to go back in time, and I shall explain how.
    Wrong. In your thought-experiment, nobody travels *back*, they just travel forward at different rates. No dinosaurs.

    although today we have lasers that actually do travel faster than light so I'm not sure how this theory is still holding true...
    The speed of light *in a vacuum* is constant and the limit, but light can be slowed down or sped up in certain media (cesium gas, for example) because it "jumps" (called quantum tunneling) instantly from one point to the next, effectively 'cheating'. Without any way of 'jumping' (which, by the way, cannot work for anything bigger than an electron), light is limited to c, 3 x 10^8 m/s.

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  6. #22
    N=R* fs fp ne fl fi fc L Pyro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    4,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey Mokele,

    Been a while since I did any quantum physics reading so I may be in error but aren't tachyons supposed to be "bigger" than electrons?

    Also, re: the 2 moons... Not that I am saying the pics are correct (I think my opinion on that was pretty clear) but 2 moons would not "flood the world". Yes there would be combined gravitational tug and tides could be higher when the 2 moons worked synergistically but for the gravitational tug to be large enough to pull water up to the highest peaks would require moons larger/more massive than Earth itself. And then the gravitational tug when the moons were "non-synergistic" would probably tear Earth apart...
    'My love was science- specifically biology and, more specifically, when placed in a common jar, which of two organisms would devour the other.'

    See You Space Cowboy

    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat
    Hagerstown, Maryland

    --
    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat

  7. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Been a while since I did any quantum physics reading so I may be in error but aren't tachyons supposed to be "bigger" than electrons?
    Technically, they're any particle, of any size, which moves faster than light.

    They're also never once been observed, meaning they could well be a mathematical fiction.

    but 2 moons would not "flood the world". Yes there would be combined gravitational tug and tides could be higher when the 2 moons worked synergistically but for the gravitational tug to be large enough to pull water up to the highest peaks would require moons larger/more massive than Earth itself. And then the gravitational tug when the moons were "non-synergistic" would probably tear Earth apart...
    Remember, though, the gravity drops of by the square of distance. If the moons are as close as depicted, they've have many times the gravitational power of the current one.

    And while I doubt they'd manage any structural effect on the solid Earth, it's not without precedent - Io's persistent volcanic activity is mostly due to the massive tidal forces exerted by jupiter.

    Mokele

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  8. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Never let it be said, however, that relativity cannot explain anything useful:




    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •