|
|
| Got secrets? |
|
|
| Total Votes : 263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:36 pm
Valheita Divine_Malevolence Valheita Divine_Malevolence Valheita Divine_Malevolence The only logical explanation ever presented to me is the fact we're seeing how stars were thousands of years in the past. Because light takes a long time to travel such distances. The 'fourth dimension' is time as in we see what the object was in the past, not as it is now. Because light isn't instantaneous. The distance it is away, and just how fast it's going (Quantum physics. If you're going faster than the speed of light away from something, you're never going to see it, and it will never see you. And if it's going toward you, that light will be going faster. Dumbasses take that to mean it's impossible to exceed that speed) define the fourth dimension. And anything beyond is something that has never logically presented itself. Before you go calling people dumbasses Divine, you might want to actually do the research? It's pretty clear you haven't, since Quantum Physics has nothing to do with it xd The evidence for 3+1 dimensions is actually fairly thorough, but it's pretty advanced. I've already one plan to blow it outta the water. Simple concept which I've already done a small scale version of with legos, don't ask how. There's nothing saying that it's impossible to go beyond the speed of light. The equation which screws up when you get to the speed of light merely states how long the light would take to get to you. Going off of what I believe Einstein said on the subject, in horrible terms, light always goes the speed of light compared to what it's coming off of. Thus if it's off the arse of something going the speed of light, it's motionless, and will never reach a destination. And as the equation states if you go above that speed, it goes negative, which means that it's going away, and could only have been at the destination in the past. Nothing states that it's impossible to go faster. As for dimension numero dos, the rate which light comes off of something is completely relevant. Something coming towards you will yield a more present image than one moving away. Much like a baseball thrown by someone on a car moving toward you will get to you faster than one thrown by a guy on a car moving away. See, this is why you do the research. The argument against travelling faster than light is that to travel at such speeds would violate causality. So..... Things can't go that fast because it would violate the cause and effect bit? That statement sounds really, really stupid. I can't go a certain speed because there will be effects not caused by anything! There's no way to cause something to go faster than that speed at the moment that isn't light itself(Which breaks that speed when compared to you every time you accelerate in any way) in this day and age. And it'd be a pain overall, with a lack of physical means to do so efficiently. So I guess you can say we're not causing anything to go that fast, but beyond that..... *Snicker* Sounds amusing. Because the effect will happen before the cause. That's the danger of violating the speed of light in a relative time-space. 'sides which, as your speed approaches light-speed, your mass becomes infinite so... Yeah, good luck getting the energy to push infinite mass that fast. Which is exactly why Impulse engines can't go faster than light.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:40 pm
CH0Z0 Valheita Divine_Malevolence Valheita Divine_Malevolence I've already one plan to blow it outta the water. Simple concept which I've already done a small scale version of with legos, don't ask how. There's nothing saying that it's impossible to go beyond the speed of light. The equation which screws up when you get to the speed of light merely states how long the light would take to get to you. Going off of what I believe Einstein said on the subject, in horrible terms, light always goes the speed of light compared to what it's coming off of. Thus if it's off the arse of something going the speed of light, it's motionless, and will never reach a destination. And as the equation states if you go above that speed, it goes negative, which means that it's going away, and could only have been at the destination in the past. Nothing states that it's impossible to go faster. As for dimension numero dos, the rate which light comes off of something is completely relevant. Something coming towards you will yield a more present image than one moving away. Much like a baseball thrown by someone on a car moving toward you will get to you faster than one thrown by a guy on a car moving away. See, this is why you do the research. The argument against travelling faster than light is that to travel at such speeds would violate causality. So..... Things can't go that fast because it would violate the cause and effect bit? That statement sounds really, really stupid. I can't go a certain speed because there will be effects not caused by anything! There's no way to cause something to go faster than that speed at the moment that isn't light itself(Which breaks that speed when compared to you every time you accelerate in any way) in this day and age. And it'd be a pain overall, with a lack of physical means to do so efficiently. So I guess you can say we're not causing anything to go that fast, but beyond that..... *Snicker* Sounds amusing. Because the effect will happen before the cause. That's the danger of violating the speed of light in a relative time-space. 'sides which, as your speed approaches light-speed, your mass becomes infinite so... Yeah, good luck getting the energy to push infinite mass that fast. Which is exactly why Impulse engines can't go faster than light. Even in Star Trek FTL is achieved through the warp field, rather than true faster-than-light movement :3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:41 pm
"According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, objects gain mass as they accelerate to greater and greater speeds. Now, to get an object to move faster, you need to give it some sort of push. An object that has more mass needs a bigger push than an object with less mass. If an object reached the speed of light, it would have an infinite amount of mass and need an infinite amount of push, or acceleration, to keep it moving. No rocket engine, no matter how powerful, could do this. In fact, as far as we know, nothing can exceed the speed of light."
Good luck finding infinity's worth of mass and energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:42 pm
Valheita CH0Z0 Valheita Divine_Malevolence Valheita Divine_Malevolence I've already one plan to blow it outta the water. Simple concept which I've already done a small scale version of with legos, don't ask how. There's nothing saying that it's impossible to go beyond the speed of light. The equation which screws up when you get to the speed of light merely states how long the light would take to get to you. Going off of what I believe Einstein said on the subject, in horrible terms, light always goes the speed of light compared to what it's coming off of. Thus if it's off the arse of something going the speed of light, it's motionless, and will never reach a destination. And as the equation states if you go above that speed, it goes negative, which means that it's going away, and could only have been at the destination in the past. Nothing states that it's impossible to go faster. As for dimension numero dos, the rate which light comes off of something is completely relevant. Something coming towards you will yield a more present image than one moving away. Much like a baseball thrown by someone on a car moving toward you will get to you faster than one thrown by a guy on a car moving away. See, this is why you do the research. The argument against travelling faster than light is that to travel at such speeds would violate causality. So..... Things can't go that fast because it would violate the cause and effect bit? That statement sounds really, really stupid. I can't go a certain speed because there will be effects not caused by anything! There's no way to cause something to go faster than that speed at the moment that isn't light itself(Which breaks that speed when compared to you every time you accelerate in any way) in this day and age. And it'd be a pain overall, with a lack of physical means to do so efficiently. So I guess you can say we're not causing anything to go that fast, but beyond that..... *Snicker* Sounds amusing. Because the effect will happen before the cause. That's the danger of violating the speed of light in a relative time-space. 'sides which, as your speed approaches light-speed, your mass becomes infinite so... Yeah, good luck getting the energy to push infinite mass that fast. Which is exactly why Impulse engines can't go faster than light. Even in Star Trek FTL is achieved through the warp field, rather than true faster-than-light movement :3 Which is exactly what I meant, The Impulse Engines use fusion reactors and are just your basic newtonian particle ejections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:43 pm
Valheita Divine_Malevolence Valheita Divine_Malevolence Valheita Divine_Malevolence The only logical explanation ever presented to me is the fact we're seeing how stars were thousands of years in the past. Because light takes a long time to travel such distances. The 'fourth dimension' is time as in we see what the object was in the past, not as it is now. Because light isn't instantaneous. The distance it is away, and just how fast it's going (Quantum physics. If you're going faster than the speed of light away from something, you're never going to see it, and it will never see you. And if it's going toward you, that light will be going faster. Dumbasses take that to mean it's impossible to exceed that speed) define the fourth dimension. And anything beyond is something that has never logically presented itself. Before you go calling people dumbasses Divine, you might want to actually do the research? It's pretty clear you haven't, since Quantum Physics has nothing to do with it xd The evidence for 3+1 dimensions is actually fairly thorough, but it's pretty advanced. I've already one plan to blow it outta the water. Simple concept which I've already done a small scale version of with legos, don't ask how. There's nothing saying that it's impossible to go beyond the speed of light. The equation which screws up when you get to the speed of light merely states how long the light would take to get to you. Going off of what I believe Einstein said on the subject, in horrible terms, light always goes the speed of light compared to what it's coming off of. Thus if it's off the arse of something going the speed of light, it's motionless, and will never reach a destination. And as the equation states if you go above that speed, it goes negative, which means that it's going away, and could only have been at the destination in the past. Nothing states that it's impossible to go faster. As for dimension numero dos, the rate which light comes off of something is completely relevant. Something coming towards you will yield a more present image than one moving away. Much like a baseball thrown by someone on a car moving toward you will get to you faster than one thrown by a guy on a car moving away. See, this is why you do the research. The argument against travelling faster than light is that to travel at such speeds would violate causality. So..... Things can't go that fast because it would violate the cause and effect bit? That statement sounds really, really stupid. I can't go a certain speed because there will be effects not caused by anything! There's no way to cause something to go faster than that speed at the moment that isn't light itself(Which breaks that speed when compared to you every time you accelerate in any way) in this day and age. And it'd be a pain overall, with a lack of physical means to do so efficiently. So I guess you can say we're not causing anything to go that fast, but beyond that..... *Snicker* Sounds amusing. Because the effect will happen before the cause. That's the danger of violating the speed of light in a relative time-space. 'sides which, as your speed approaches light-speed, your mass becomes infinite so... Yeah, good luck getting the energy to push infinite mass that fast. The effect will happen before the cause. Right. If you actually see that, it's a trick of the light. The cause still comes first, you just see it later. And mass won't increase. The force you can measure will, sure, but not much beyond that. But relative, if something moving fast would become heavier, the other things would become heavier as well. Turns into a mass a>Mass b>Mass a type thing. The ruler inside is longer than the one outside, but.... Wait, no! The one outside is, in fact, longer than the one inside. If things can actually be measured as such, it's a physical illusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:01 pm
This Klingon player in a Bird of Prey won't stop rushing me and forcing me to kill him, since I'm apparently a much better player than him.
Open PVP zones are fun and all, but there IS a mission for this area to accomplish and this dude's respawning and rushing at me so fast I barely have time to recover before he's back
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:06 pm
Divine_Malevolence The effect will happen before the cause. Right. If you actually see that, it's a trick of the light. The cause still comes first, you just see it later. And mass won't increase. The force you can measure will, sure, but not much beyond that. But relative, if something moving fast would become heavier, the other things would become heavier as well. Turns into a mass a>Mass b>Mass a type thing. The ruler inside is longer than the one outside, but.... Wait, no! The one outside is, in fact, longer than the one inside. If things can actually be measured as such, it's a physical illusion. No, in the frame of the moving object the event called "effect" will actually occur earlier than the event called "cause". And the increase of mass with speed is a well observed effect, which is actually applied in the particle accelerator. Please Divine, if you want to debate physics, at least take a couple of classes so that the people proving you wrong don't have to waste their time educating you as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:13 pm
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! "According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, objects gain mass as they accelerate to greater and greater speeds. Now, to get an object to move faster, you need to give it some sort of push. An object that has more mass needs a bigger push than an object with less mass. If an object reached the speed of light, it would have an infinite amount of mass and need an infinite amount of push, or acceleration, to keep it moving. No rocket engine, no matter how powerful, could do this. In fact, as far as we know, nothing can exceed the speed of light." Good luck finding infinity's worth of mass and energy. "According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, objects gain mass as they accelerate to greater and greater speeds." Uhm...... Really now? This is news, and sounds wrong. Besides, relativity is relative things. Stating that you can count one thing as going light speed going one way, or the other thing is going light speed in the other. Thus there's an infinite amount of mass in the earth should there be an infinite amount of mass in whatever else. "Now, to get an object to move faster, you need to give it some sort of push. An object that has more mass needs a bigger push than an object with less mass. " Sensible bit. "If an object reached the speed of light, it would have an infinite amount of mass" Again, sounds wrong. "and need an infinite amount of push, or acceleration, to keep it moving. No rocket engine, no matter how powerful, could do this. In fact, as far as we know, nothing can exceed the speed of light." F=MA. Going off this, there's an infinite amount of mass in the relative thing it's going opposite. Infinite mass equals infinite force. Which means you can generate infinite force and push it past. Which sounds really odd. Relativity means how fast one thing is going when compared to another. Relative. Two things are coming together, or going apart at a certain relative speed. Of course, they seem to say "To keep it moving." Which basically says they haven't heard of the term "Inertia" before. Things keep moving unless something is there to stop them, not the reverse. 'Course, then again, having infinite mass is also more or less impossible. And if it was, that would be the end of the universe due to gravitational laws. So I wouldn't need to worry about pushing it past that point, as gravity throughout the universe wold instantly become infinite.... The gravitational "Force", by the by, which would be made infinite due to the infinite mass, thus giving another infinite force with which to push/pull the infinite mass..... .... And kill/destroy everything. Plus, that's an infinite acceleration, which would cause things to break the speed of light while being pulled into the fast moving object. And they'd attain infinite mass by what that says. But that would just make the attraction stronger. I must say, physical equations seems to be disagreeing with this in it's entirety. F=GM1M2/R^2 Make M1 infinite, and actually have an M2, and make it so that they weren't an infinite distance apart, and that makes force infinite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:18 pm
Valheita Divine_Malevolence The effect will happen before the cause. Right. If you actually see that, it's a trick of the light. The cause still comes first, you just see it later. And mass won't increase. The force you can measure will, sure, but not much beyond that. But relative, if something moving fast would become heavier, the other things would become heavier as well. Turns into a mass a>Mass b>Mass a type thing. The ruler inside is longer than the one outside, but.... Wait, no! The one outside is, in fact, longer than the one inside. If things can actually be measured as such, it's a physical illusion. No, in the frame of the moving object the event called "effect" will actually occur earlier than the event called "cause". And the increase of mass with speed is a well observed effect, which is actually applied in the particle accelerator. Please Divine, if you want to debate physics, at least take a couple of classes so that the people proving you wrong don't have to waste their time educating you as well. I don't want morons pushing bullshit into my head. ..... Particle accelerator? You mean, we're accurately observing something that we, by very definition, can't directly observe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:19 pm
Divine_Malevolence Valheita Divine_Malevolence The effect will happen before the cause. Right. If you actually see that, it's a trick of the light. The cause still comes first, you just see it later. And mass won't increase. The force you can measure will, sure, but not much beyond that. But relative, if something moving fast would become heavier, the other things would become heavier as well. Turns into a mass a>Mass b>Mass a type thing. The ruler inside is longer than the one outside, but.... Wait, no! The one outside is, in fact, longer than the one inside. If things can actually be measured as such, it's a physical illusion. No, in the frame of the moving object the event called "effect" will actually occur earlier than the event called "cause". And the increase of mass with speed is a well observed effect, which is actually applied in the particle accelerator. Please Divine, if you want to debate physics, at least take a couple of classes so that the people proving you wrong don't have to waste their time educating you as well. I don't want morons pushing bullshit into my head. ..... Particle accelerator? You mean, we're accurately observing something that we, by very definition, can't directly observe? I never said you had to believe it, just understand it. At the moment, it's like I'm engaging in a debate with a creationist. What makes you think we cannot directly observe a particle?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:27 pm
Valheita Divine_Malevolence Valheita Divine_Malevolence The effect will happen before the cause. Right. If you actually see that, it's a trick of the light. The cause still comes first, you just see it later. And mass won't increase. The force you can measure will, sure, but not much beyond that. But relative, if something moving fast would become heavier, the other things would become heavier as well. Turns into a mass a>Mass b>Mass a type thing. The ruler inside is longer than the one outside, but.... Wait, no! The one outside is, in fact, longer than the one inside. If things can actually be measured as such, it's a physical illusion. No, in the frame of the moving object the event called "effect" will actually occur earlier than the event called "cause". And the increase of mass with speed is a well observed effect, which is actually applied in the particle accelerator. Please Divine, if you want to debate physics, at least take a couple of classes so that the people proving you wrong don't have to waste their time educating you as well. I don't want morons pushing bullshit into my head. ..... Particle accelerator? You mean, we're accurately observing something that we, by very definition, can't directly observe? I never said you had to believe it, just understand it. At the moment, it's like I'm engaging in a debate with a creationist. What makes you think we cannot directly observe a particle? They're never in the same place, they're small to a point where the method of observing it would ******** up our readings, and..... Isn't it said that they can be in two places at once? Truth is, nobody has any idea what the ******** is going on down there, and they're probably getting results they've no idea how to interpret.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:29 pm
Divine_Malevolence Valheita Divine_Malevolence Valheita Divine_Malevolence The effect will happen before the cause. Right. If you actually see that, it's a trick of the light. The cause still comes first, you just see it later. And mass won't increase. The force you can measure will, sure, but not much beyond that. But relative, if something moving fast would become heavier, the other things would become heavier as well. Turns into a mass a>Mass b>Mass a type thing. The ruler inside is longer than the one outside, but.... Wait, no! The one outside is, in fact, longer than the one inside. If things can actually be measured as such, it's a physical illusion. No, in the frame of the moving object the event called "effect" will actually occur earlier than the event called "cause". And the increase of mass with speed is a well observed effect, which is actually applied in the particle accelerator. Please Divine, if you want to debate physics, at least take a couple of classes so that the people proving you wrong don't have to waste their time educating you as well. I don't want morons pushing bullshit into my head. ..... Particle accelerator? You mean, we're accurately observing something that we, by very definition, can't directly observe? I never said you had to believe it, just understand it. At the moment, it's like I'm engaging in a debate with a creationist. What makes you think we cannot directly observe a particle? They're never in the same place, they're small to a point where the method of observing it would ******** up our readings, and..... Isn't it said that they can be in two places at once? Truth is, nobody has any idea what the ******** is going on down there, and they're probably getting results they've no idea how to interpret. Some scientists apparently made a particle of light be in two places at once. Theres also the issue of them randomly ceasing to exist and then popping up later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:30 pm
Divine_Malevolence They're never in the same place, they're small to a point where the method of observing it would ******** up our readings, and..... Isn't it said that they can be in two places at once? Truth is, nobody has any idea what the ******** is going on down there, and they're probably getting results they've no idea how to interpret. You can observe their motion easily, and remember observation principle Divine. They're only in one place when they've been observed. Look up a cloud chamber sometime. Quantum physics is better understood than you think - not that you'd know. You haven't bothered to study it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:31 pm
Foxie the Vixen Divine_Malevolence Valheita Divine_Malevolence Valheita Divine_Malevolence The effect will happen before the cause. Right. If you actually see that, it's a trick of the light. The cause still comes first, you just see it later. And mass won't increase. The force you can measure will, sure, but not much beyond that. But relative, if something moving fast would become heavier, the other things would become heavier as well. Turns into a mass a>Mass b>Mass a type thing. The ruler inside is longer than the one outside, but.... Wait, no! The one outside is, in fact, longer than the one inside. If things can actually be measured as such, it's a physical illusion. No, in the frame of the moving object the event called "effect" will actually occur earlier than the event called "cause". And the increase of mass with speed is a well observed effect, which is actually applied in the particle accelerator. Please Divine, if you want to debate physics, at least take a couple of classes so that the people proving you wrong don't have to waste their time educating you as well. I don't want morons pushing bullshit into my head. ..... Particle accelerator? You mean, we're accurately observing something that we, by very definition, can't directly observe? I never said you had to believe it, just understand it. At the moment, it's like I'm engaging in a debate with a creationist. What makes you think we cannot directly observe a particle? They're never in the same place, they're small to a point where the method of observing it would ******** up our readings, and..... Isn't it said that they can be in two places at once? Truth is, nobody has any idea what the ******** is going on down there, and they're probably getting results they've no idea how to interpret. Some scientists apparently made a particle of light be in two places at once. Theres also the issue of them randomly ceasing to exist and then popping up later. Yeah. I'm not putting any value in anything these people put out. It's unreliable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
