41

New Theories / How unbelievably selve-absorbed people are

« on: 02/03/2008 14:02:56 »

But how does raising something to infinite mass make it move at infinite speed? Or are you saying that if something has infinite mass, it has the potential to move at the maximum speed?

Also, if the maximum speed is a finite number, shouldn't things below infinite mass be able to attain it? And what about photons? They travel at the speed of light, they define the speed of light; are they infinitely dense?

And isn't it possible that certain things have a maximum speed point, where others have different ones?

So you're saying that something of infinite mass has the capability to travel at the maximum speed, but if something accelerates towards the maximum speed, does its mass increase? Does that mean that the supposed singularity of a black hole travels at the speed of light?

Thanks

42

New Theories / How unbelievably selve-absorbed people are

« on: 01/03/2008 18:56:28 »

Okay, so if I concede (good work on that.. it's hard to get me to concede anything) that at infinite mass, whatever you're pushing can't be accelerated, and I assume for now that the speed of light is the maximum speed of anything, that still doesn't mean that anything traveling at the speed of light has infinite mass, because multiple factors determine whether or not something can be accelerated

No - if something cannot be accelerated, the no matter what multiplicity of forces you have, you cannot accelerate it.  No matter how many forces you have, the key issue is that the sum of all those forces represents a nett force acting on the object, and it remains that no matter what nett force applies to the object, you cannot make it accelerate once it has reached the speed of light.

Sorry, I should've been more clear. I'll explain what I meant in pseudocode..

Code: [Select]

possible acceleration = yes;

if mass is infinite OR maximum speed attained OR [other conditions]

then possible acceleration = no;
the ORs are inclusive. I just meant that because one condition is true, it doesn't mean the others are true as well.

Okay, so E is the amount of energy an object contains when it's not moving? Or its potential energy, or what?

Wait, when you split an atom, aren't all the particles inside it just separated from eachother? I was under the (apparently false) impression that the energy released was the energy from the bonds being broken.

No, there is a measurable difference in the mass of the whole from the mass of the parts (it is a very small difference, but it is there).  One can debate whether the mass comes from the mass contributed by the bonds, or a change in mass of the constituent parts themselves (I believe the consensus is the former, but for the purpose of the issue at hand, the difference does not matter).

I believe there are now a number of different experiments that can show that mass is not always conserved, but when mass changes, there is a change in energy that reflects the increase or decrease in mass.

Interesting... Now throw quantum physics into the mix with all those other possible dimensions from Timeline and you'll have scientists all over the world jumping off bridges =P

43

New Theories / How unbelievably selve-absorbed people are

« on: 01/03/2008 18:22:51 »

I consider that a very biased opinion. Please support it. If you can say that for light, you can really say that for anything. I always travel at the same speed, sometimes there's just stuff in my way.

44

New Theories / How unbelievably selve-absorbed people are

« on: 01/03/2008 18:17:38 »

..just because nothing faster has been measured, it's considered the maximum speed? That's terrible rationalization! (No offense).

Okay, so if I concede (good work on that.. it's hard to get me to concede anything) that at infinite mass, whatever you're pushing can't be accelerated, and I assume for now that the speed of light is the maximum speed of anything, that still doesn't mean that anything traveling at the speed of light has infinite mass, because multiple factors determine whether or not something can be accelerated.

Okay, so E is the amount of energy an object contains when it's not moving? Or its potential energy, or what?

Wait, when you split an atom, aren't all the particles inside it just separated from eachother? I was under the (apparently false) impression that the energy released was the energy from the bonds being broken.

45

New Theories / How unbelievably selve-absorbed people are

« on: 01/03/2008 15:11:46 »

OK, in very simplistic terms (and I'll probably be crucified for simplifying things so far, but you wanted it simple), let us look at the relation of time and length.

If you are travelling by motor car, and it takes to 5 minutes to travel between two towns that are 5 miles apart, then you are travelling at 50mph.

Now, if it takes you 4 minutes to travel between those two towns, then you have a number of possibilities:

1) you have sped up to 75mph.

2) the towns have moved closer together, and are now only 4 miles apart.

3) your clock is slow, and time has stretched out, so that what was 5 minutes is now only 4 minutes.

If one now says that your car is not capable of going faster than 60mph, then we can discount the first possibility; so one is left with the other two possibilities.  Either the owns have moved closer together, or time has stretched out.

As it happens, depending on your perspective, you may claim one to be true or that the other is true.  OK, the speed limit on your car is not actually 60mph, but actually 186,000 miles per second; but as you get close to that speed, the people inside the car will see the towns moving closer together, whereas people on the outside will claim that the clocks the people inside the car are using are running slow (but it is not just mechanical clocks, but all aspects of time, from human ageing to the rates of chemical reactions, or any way in which one can measure time).

you're making a strange set of assumptions. Firstly,  who says light can travel at the maximum possible speed for anything?

Second, if my car were to speed up (the first selection), then that does not necessarily validate one or both of the others. You're using the theory I'm inquiring about as an explanation. Just because I'm moving faster does not mean I see things moving closer together, it just means they get closer faster (simultaneously, things behind me would move away faster), so it would not look like they were moving closer together. (Likewise, moving the towns closer together would not increase my speed).

Same basic arguments go for the time thing, so I'm not gonna retype it. You're right by saying "see" and "claim", it would appear this way IF you didn't know the car's speed had increased, but they still are the same distance apart. So is that what that entire theory states? That if you increase speed or decrease distance, the other appears increased/decreased to it? That seems like it shouldn't have taken a famous scientist to figure out [].

Also, what's the idea behind that if you approach the speed of light, you become infinitely dense? And how does E=MCC work?

46

New Theories / How unbelievably selve-absorbed people are

« on: 29/02/2008 23:05:25 »

People like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by scientific communities, and whole lives are based on validating or continuing the things they have done, but these formulas, like E=MC squared, have some very odd flaws. First of all, the speed of light is not constant, light slows down (shown by black holes and how they can bend light towards them or make it change direction), but yet it is still used as a constant.. which speed of light do you use, who's to say which speed is 'natural'? Also, I find the idea that he seems to have almost arbitrarily used the speed of light laughable.

Sight is our most relied-upon sense. If you went deaf, you could find your way to work and live your life pretty well still. If you went blind, you'd have to make far more adjustments. Because of this, light is seen as a very important thing, which explains why it was involved in such formulas, and also why black holes are seen as so mysterious (because they nullify our ability to see them, which makes them amazing and interesting). Just because something nullifies one sense, that we could just as easily have not evolved with, does not mean it has the ability to bend space-time or rip time or manipulate these things otherwise. Why not E = M * speed of 1998 olympic gold medalist for 100 metre-dash? That's just as self-absorbed.

Also, how can space and time be intertwined so that manipulating one manipulates the other? I accept that time is another dimension, but if you shorten the width of something, do not its depth and height remain unchanged? Why should manipulating spacial amounts in any way mess with time?

Thanks, Teh Robot

P.S. Please try and make your answers as simple as possible without leaving out details.. I'm barely 15, so please keep that in mind when typing out an essay answer []

47

New Theories / Human Evolution has hit a Dead End

« on: 29/02/2008 22:51:38 »

I agree with this.. I myself suggested this to many people, but nobody seems to listen too much. Evolution is based on 'Survival of the fittest'.

It's not quite that evolution STOPS with this, because the benign mutations still survive and continue getting passed on, it's just that bad mutations survive and may get passed on as well, so now evolutions going a bad way as well as a good way.