• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Science!

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Off Topic
656 Posts 48 Posters 37.2k Views
Science!
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • D Offline
    D Offline
    Dodge
    wrote on last edited by
    #601

    I mean, I assumed he probably was. But my tiny pea fucking brain cannot for the life of me understand why.

    Thank you for replying, I just tried reading the link whilst drunk, got lost at the point it said that if I’m travelling towards you at 60mph and you throw a ball at me at 60mph then the ball is not hitting me at 120mph. But I’m a bit drunk. So whilst I know I’m stupid all the time, I’d like to think I’ll be less stupid when sober in the morning. Fingers crossed

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • nzzpN Offline
    nzzpN Offline
    nzzp
    wrote on last edited by
    #602

    I'll try and confuse myself and others some more then - good luck to sober @Dodge

    So, if you do a thought experiment to see how the fixed speed of light affects things, you start to get weird. Imagine you have a spaceship that can instantaneously go 99.999 percent of the speed of light. You're standing there, it takes off and hits that velocity. They shine a torch out the front.
    To you, the spaceship is heading away at 99.999% and the light is verrrry slowly moving away from the front of the ship.
    Inside the ship, the light is moving away from you at the speed of light. You see this differnetly because inside the ship, time is massively dilated (ie things outside are happening much much faster than you perceive them).

    Not sure if that helped or confused you, but good luck. It's complex and hard. I remember our lecturer came in to talk about it, put the thought experiment out there. THen came back the next lecture and said 'oops sorry, actually that wasn't right, here's the right answer'. Then came back the lecture after and said oops I was right originally all along, sorry 🙂 It's mind bending stuff.

    D 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    wrote on last edited by
    #603

    🤯

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • KruseK Online
    KruseK Online
    Kruse
    wrote on last edited by
    #604

    What I've never understood is that sure:
    I get that if you move in one direction - away from Earth, for example, at 99.999999% the speed of light - sure... there is "relative" time travel.
    But - if you then do a U-turn... and travel back the same distance, at the same speed... then "relatively speaking" - there should be no "time travel" - surely?

    taniwharugbyT nzzpN KirwanK 3 Replies Last reply
    0
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to Kruse on last edited by
    #605

    @Kruse but the light travels both ways too? I mean your light-speed travelling rocket, surely has a light at the front 😉

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • nzzpN Offline
    nzzpN Offline
    nzzp
    replied to Kruse on last edited by
    #606

    @Kruse the 'time travel' is 'go really fast and time speeds up outside your spaceship'. It doesn't matter which direction, it's all about speed.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • KruseK Online
    KruseK Online
    Kruse
    wrote on last edited by
    #607

    Yeah - but the key is in the name of the theory - Relativity.
    "Time Travel" only happens in relation to something else.
    Yeah - the torch pointing forwards - in relation to the light from THAT - you're nearly going forward in time.
    But a torch pointing BACKWARDS... you're travelling away from THAT at 199.999999 % the speed of light...
    ...
    That's how I've always assumed it worked... that it must be more about the Velocity, rather than speed - when it all settles out in the wash.
    But if Brian Cox is saying otherwise... I guess I must be wrong, I just can't figure out how.
    Stupid. Stupid. Stupid Kruse. Gonna have another beer, kill some more brain cells, they're obviously no good.

    nzzpN boobooB 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • nzzpN Offline
    nzzpN Offline
    nzzp
    replied to Kruse on last edited by
    #608

    @Kruse said in Science!:

    But a torch pointing BACKWARDS... you're travelling away from THAT at 199.999999 % the speed of light...

    I think this is right. If you are on earth, you see Kruse in a spaceship going away at 99.9999% and the light coming towards you at 100%. I think (fingers crossed) you'd see some serious blueshift - maybe to make shit balance.

    Kruse sees light going away in front and behind at 100%. I think.

    Also I think you've confused me 🙂

    boobooB nostrildamusN 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • D Offline
    D Offline
    Dodge
    replied to nzzp on last edited by
    #609

    @nzzp yes I’ve tried to get my head around this before, I just fundamentally can’t understand relativity. The first bit, watching a train go by from far away vs close up, watching someone bouncing a ball on that train, to them goes up and down in a vertical line, to the observer outside goes up and down at angles (and therefore travels further) - I get.

    Then my mind frazzles when you get to the consequences…

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • dogmeatD Offline
    dogmeatD Offline
    dogmeat
    wrote on last edited by dogmeat
    #610

    Further complicated by the fact that they reckon at the time of the big bang stars travelled faster than the speed of light and some continue to do so but we can't see them because travelling faster than light etc. (Partly) explaining why there is less observable matter than there theoretically should be.

    Also theoretically would allow us to also travel faster than light by creating a warp bubble around our FTL ship with time distilled around the bubble - or something like that

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • KirwanK Offline
    KirwanK Offline
    Kirwan
    replied to Kruse on last edited by
    #611

    @Kruse said in Science!:

    What I've never understood is that sure:
    I get that if you move in one direction - away from Earth, for example, at 99.999999% the speed of light - sure... there is "relative" time travel.
    But - if you then do a U-turn... and travel back the same distance, at the same speed... then "relatively speaking" - there should be no "time travel" - surely?

    It still takes time for the journey to take place, in either direction. And the closer you get to the speed of light time travels at a different rate for the observer on earth.

    So 10 years each way could be 100 years on earth, so 200 years will have passed on earth. It's not a measure of the distance travelled, but the rate at what time passes for you.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • Windows97W Offline
    Windows97W Offline
    Windows97
    wrote on last edited by
    #612

    Thankfully one day when we start producing vehicles that can go close to the speed of light well be able to prove all of this...

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • boobooB Offline
    boobooB Offline
    booboo
    replied to Kruse on last edited by
    #613

    @Kruse said in Science!:

    But a torch pointing BACKWARDS... you're travelling away from THAT at 199.999999 % the speed of light...

    Late to the party ...

    ... I thought no. The light is travelling away from you, relative to you, at the speed of light.

    It's not Newtonian physics where you add one to the other. The speed of light is absolute.

    I thought.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • boobooB Offline
    boobooB Offline
    booboo
    replied to nzzp on last edited by
    #614

    @nzzp said in Science!:

    @Kruse said in Science!:

    But a torch pointing BACKWARDS... you're travelling away from THAT at 199.999999 % the speed of light...

    I think this is right. If you are on earth, you see Kruse in a spaceship going away at 99.9999% and the light coming towards you at 100%. I think (fingers crossed) you'd see some serious blueshift - maybe to make shit balance.

    Kruse sees light going away in front and behind at 100%. I think.

    Also I think you've confused me 🙂

    Pretty sure blueshift is due to the apparent shortening of wavelengths as the speed of light stays the same.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • nostrildamusN Offline
    nostrildamusN Offline
    nostrildamus Banned
    replied to nzzp on last edited by
    #615

    @nzzp said in Science!:

    Kruse sees light going away in front and behind at 100%. I think.

    There's a flaw here, we all know Kruse will be too pissed to notice, watching dodgy movies..

    1 Reply Last reply
    4
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    wrote on last edited by
    #616

    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231117-time-dilation-planes-einstein-relativity-black-holes

    1 Reply Last reply
    3
  • KruseK Online
    KruseK Online
    Kruse
    wrote on last edited by Kruse
    #617

    Okay... this:

    ... flying first west and then east around the globe before returning to their laboratory in Washington DC. There, they compared the time on their well-travelled timepieces to a set of clocks that had remained static. Remarkably, the clocks disagreed: the act of travel had seemingly altered the passage of time.

    ... disproves my understanding of the whole concept of "relativity"
    But also - in my mind - makes the whole term "relativity" a fucking nonsense.
    And... in the time-honoured fashion of imbeciles everywhere... I don't understand it, therefore... I don't like it.
    Fuck you Relativity - I liked you when you made sense... but now you've turned crazy - fuck off-ski.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • TimT Away
    TimT Away
    Tim
    wrote on last edited by
    #618

    11.8 million CHF for clinical trials of novel arthritis repair

    11.8 million CHF for clinical trials of novel arthritis repair

    Swiss government and European Union award 11.8 million CHF for next generation clinical trials of novel arthritis repair. The researchers at the Department of Biomedicine, University of Basel and University Hospital Basel, are actively recruiting for clinical trials.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • TimT Away
    TimT Away
    Tim
    wrote on last edited by
    #619

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/prosthetic-leg

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    5
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to Tim on last edited by
    #620

    @Tim amazing how more natural that looked.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1

Science!
Off Topic
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.