HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Pages: 12AllNext
Current Page: 1 of 2
Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 04:10PM

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said.

"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.

Related Links
Time Travel Is Possible, Says Stephen Hawking
Don’t Talk to Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Time of Reckoning for Obama, Pelosi Cruise Prices Near Record Lows Again Buffett's Dairy Queen Chilly on Frozen Yogurt Lawsuit Escaped Arizona Inmates Believed to be Hiding in Yellowstone Park Unlocking Mystery of Civil War-Era Submarine That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or about 50,000 years using current rocket science.

Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."

This is not the first time Hawking has warned of impending planetary doom. In 2006, the physicist warned that Earth was at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out. And lately, Hawking has become quite outspoken.

In April, he warned of the dangers of communicating with aliens, telling the Discovery Channel that extra-terrestrials are almost certain to exist -- and humanity should avoid contact with them at all cost.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,†he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.â€

The answer, he suggests, is that most of alien life will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals -- the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history -- and they could pose a serious threat to us.

In May Hawking said he believed humans could travel millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet. If spaceships are built that can fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

edit by Cary: Multiple garbage threads merged into this one. Also Vince(1) has been banned for one month. No spam please!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2010 06:20PM by Cary.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Johnny Walker ()
Date: August 09, 2010 04:13PM

Psshhh! What does he know?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 09, 2010 04:19PM

He may have mathematical algorythms down that MAKE UP LAWS where the process falls short, but sorry he is a fucking DUMBASS.

I'll stick out my days right here on planet earth waiting for the return of our savior AND CREATOR.

Don't worry though. Thankfully it's people like YOU who will be the first to WILLINGLY be hearded into the KILLING OVENS for supposed planetary evacuation due to extra terrestrial invasion.

Morons.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:14PM

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said.

"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.

Related Links
Time Travel Is Possible, Says Stephen Hawking
Don’t Talk to Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Time of Reckoning for Obama, Pelosi Cruise Prices Near Record Lows Again Buffett's Dairy Queen Chilly on Frozen Yogurt Lawsuit Escaped Arizona Inmates Believed to be Hiding in Yellowstone Park Unlocking Mystery of Civil War-Era Submarine That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or about 50,000 years using current rocket science.

Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."

This is not the first time Hawking has warned of impending planetary doom. In 2006, the physicist warned that Earth was at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out. And lately, Hawking has become quite outspoken.

In April, he warned of the dangers of communicating with aliens, telling the Discovery Channel that extra-terrestrials are almost certain to exist -- and humanity should avoid contact with them at all cost.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,†he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.â€

The answer, he suggests, is that most of alien life will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals -- the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history -- and they could pose a serious threat to us.

In May Hawking said he believed humans could travel millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet. If spaceships are built that can fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Harry Tuttle ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:16PM

I've never understood the whole "time would slow down if you travel faster than the speed of light" thing...

How did they come up with that? It doesn't really make sense to me... Does it have something to do with time being relative?

Anyone have enough of a grasp on that concept to explain it?

Signatures are for fags

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:17PM

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said.

"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.

Related Links
Time Travel Is Possible, Says Stephen Hawking
Don’t Talk to Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Time of Reckoning for Obama, Pelosi Cruise Prices Near Record Lows Again Buffett's Dairy Queen Chilly on Frozen Yogurt Lawsuit Escaped Arizona Inmates Believed to be Hiding in Yellowstone Park Unlocking Mystery of Civil War-Era Submarine That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or about 50,000 years using current rocket science.

Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."

This is not the first time Hawking has warned of impending planetary doom. In 2006, the physicist warned that Earth was at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out. And lately, Hawking has become quite outspoken.

In April, he warned of the dangers of communicating with aliens, telling the Discovery Channel that extra-terrestrials are almost certain to exist -- and humanity should avoid contact with them at all cost.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,†he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.â€

The answer, he suggests, is that most of alien life will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals -- the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history -- and they could pose a serious threat to us.

In May Hawking said he believed humans could travl millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet. If spaceships are built that can fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: confusing ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:25PM

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never understood the whole "time would slow
> down if you travel faster than the speed of light"
> thing...
>
> How did they come up with that? It doesn't really
> make sense to me... Does it have something to do
> with time being relative?
>
> Anyone have enough of a grasp on that concept to
> explain it?


My physics teacher explained that it's due to the relativity of time. It blows away common sense and it's impossible for the average person to comprehend

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Harry Tuttle ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:31PM

I guess I need to find an above average person to explain it to me then...

confusing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My physics teacher explained that it's due to the
> relativity of time. It blows away common sense and
> it's impossible for the average person to
> comprehend

Signatures are for fags

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:34PM

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never understood the whole "time would slow
> down if you travel faster than the speed of light"
> thing...
>
> How did they come up with that? It doesn't really
> make sense to me... Does it have something to do
> with time being relative?
>
> Anyone have enough of a grasp on that concept to
> explain it?

Think of it like this:

The Flash, of DC Comics. He moves real fuckin' fast, right? But, he has to be able to perceive things fast enough to do that. So, since he does everything so much faster, the rest of the world would appear to be in slow motion. Is time actually slowing down? No, but one second at our speed might feel like ten seconds for him. Because of how goddamn fast he's going.

Does that help?

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
N
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:13PM

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said.

"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.

Related Links
Time Travel Is Possible, Says Stephen Hawking
Don’t Talk to Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Time of Reckoning for Obama, Pelosi Cruise Prices Near Record Lows Again Buffett's Dairy Queen Chilly on Frozen Yogurt Lawsuit Escaped Arizona Inmates Believed to be Hiding in Yellowstone Park Unlocking Mystery of Civil War-Era Submarine That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or about 50,000 years using current rocket science.

Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."

This is not the first time Hawking has warned of impending planetary doom. In 2006, the physicist warned that Earth was at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out. And lately, Hawking has become quite outspoken.

In April, he warned of the dangers of communicating with aliens, telling the Discovery Channel that extra-terrestrials are almost certain to exist -- and humanity should avoid contact with them at all cost.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,†he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.â€

The answer, he suggests, is that most of alien life will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals -- the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history -- and they could pose a serious threat to us.

In May Hawking said he believed humans could travel millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet. If spaceships are built that can fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: N
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:15PM



Attachments:
CakeCatVince.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: N
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:19PM

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said.

"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.

Related Links
Time Travel Is Possible, Says Stephen Hawking
Don’t Talk to Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Time of Reckoning for Obama, Pelosi Cruise Prices Near Record Lows Again Buffett's Dairy Queen Chilly on Frozen Yogurt Lawsuit Escaped Arizona Inmates Believed to be Hiding in Yellowstone Park Unlocking Mystery of Civil War-Era Submarine That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or about 50,000 years using current rocket science.

Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."

This is not the first time Hawking has warned of impending planetary doom. In 2006, the physicist warned that Earth was at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out. And lately, Hawking has become quite outspoken.

In April, he warned of the dangers of communicating with aliens, telling the Discovery Channel that extra-terrestrials are almost certain to exist -- and humanity should avoid contact with them at all cost.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,†he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.â€

The answer, he suggests, is that most of alien life will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals -- the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history -- and they could pose a serious threat to us.

In May Hawking said he believed humans could travel millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet. If spaceships are built that can fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Harry Tuttle ()
Date: August 09, 2010 06:10PM

Thank you for your explanation...

That helps a little... But that really doesn't explain what Mr. Hawking said about one day in super lightspeed travel being the equivalent of one Earth year...

In other words, he's saying that the Earth would age faster than you would...

In your example, wouldn't The Flash age faster than the Earth? Since everything seems to be moving in slow motion to him?

How could fast travel cause you to age at a different speed than anything else? Wouldn't it just seem like time slowed down?

If you had a clock, in your vehicle, set to Earth time (assuming the clock could still function) wouldn't the five minutes that passed still be five minutes Earth time regardless of the speed?

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think of it like this:
>
> The Flash, of DC Comics. He moves real fuckin'
> fast, right? But, he has to be able to perceive
> things fast enough to do that. So, since he does
> everything so much faster, the rest of the world
> would appear to be in slow motion. Is time
> actually slowing down? No, but one second at our
> speed might feel like ten seconds for him.
> Because of how goddamn fast he's going.
>
> Does that help?

Signatures are for fags

Options: ReplyQuote
G
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:12PM

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said.

"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.

Related Links
Time Travel Is Possible, Says Stephen Hawking
Don’t Talk to Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Time of Reckoning for Obama, Pelosi Cruise Prices Near Record Lows Again Buffett's Dairy Queen Chilly on Frozen Yogurt Lawsuit Escaped Arizona Inmates Believed to be Hiding in Yellowstone Park Unlocking Mystery of Civil War-Era Submarine That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or about 50,000 years using current rocket science.

Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."

This is not the first time Hawking has warned of impending planetary doom. In 2006, the physicist warned that Earth was at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out. And lately, Hawking has become quite outspoken.

In April, he warned of the dangers of communicating with aliens, telling the Discovery Channel that extra-terrestrials are almost certain to exist -- and humanity should avoid contact with them at all cost.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,†he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.â€

The answer, he suggests, is that most of alien life will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals -- the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history -- and they could pose a serious threat to us.

In May Hawking said he believed humans could travel millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet. If spaceships are built that can fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: G
Posted by: Teased by Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:15PM

I am sorry. I thought this was a thread about the letter "G". Too bad - it is the seventh letter in the alphabet you know.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: G
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:16PM

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said.

"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.

Related Links
Time Travel Is Possible, Says Stephen Hawking
Don’t Talk to Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Time of Reckoning for Obama, Pelosi Cruise Prices Near Record Lows Again Buffett's Dairy Queen Chilly on Frozen Yogurt Lawsuit Escaped Arizona Inmates Believed to be Hiding in Yellowstone Park Unlocking Mystery of Civil War-Era Submarine That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or about 50,000 years using current rocket science.

Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."

This is not the first time Hawking has warned of impending planetary doom. In 2006, the physicist warned that Earth was at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out. And lately, Hawking has become quite outspoken.

In April, he warned of the dangers of communicating with aliens, telling the Discovery Channel that extra-terrestrials are almost certain to exist -- and humanity should avoid contact with them at all cost.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,†he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.â€

The answer, he suggests, is that most of alien life will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals -- the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history -- and they could pose a serious threat to us.

In May Hawking said he believed humans could travel millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet. If spaceships are built that can fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: G
Posted by: MC Hawking ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:17PM

If Stephen Hawking knew you were doing this, he would get up out of his seat and whoop your ass Vinnie.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: G
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:19PM

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said.

"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawki said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.

Related Links
Time Travel Is Possible, Says Stephen Hawking
Don’t Talk to Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Time of Reckoning for Obama, Pelosi Cruise Prices Near Record Lows Again Buffett's Dairy Queen Chilly on Frozen Yogurt Lawsuit Escaped Arizona Inmates Believed to be Hiding in Yellowstone Park Unlocking Mystery of Civil War-Era Submarine That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or about 50,000 years using current rocket science.

Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."

This is not the first time Hawking has warned of impending planetary doom. In 2006, the physicist warned that Earth was at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out. And lately, Hawking has become quite outspoken.

In April, he warned of the dangers of communicating with aliens, telling the Discovery Channel that extra-terrestrials are almost certain to exist -- and humanity should avoid contact with them at all cost.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,†he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.â€

The answer, he suggests, is that most of alien life will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals -- the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history -- and they could pose a serious threat to us.

In May Hawking said he believed humans could travel millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet. If spaceships are built that can fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Options: ReplyQuote
A
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:12PM

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said.

"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.

Related Links
Time Travel Is Possible, Says Stephen Hawking
Don’t Talk to Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Time of Reckoning for Obama, Pelosi Cruise Prices Near Record Lows Again Buffett's Dairy Queen Chilly on Frozen Yogurt Lawsuit Escaped Arizona Inmates Believed to be Hiding in Yellowstone Park Unlocking Mystery of Civil War-Era Submarine That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or about 50,000 years using current rocket science.

Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."

This is not the first time Hawking has warned of impending planetary doom. In 2006, the physicist warned that Earth was at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out. And lately, Hawking has become quite outspoken.

In April, he warned of the dangers of communicating with aliens, telling the Discovery Channel that extra-terrestrials are almost certain to exist -- and humanity should avoid contact with them at all cost.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,†he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.â€

The answer, he suggests, is that most of alien life will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals -- the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history -- and they could pose a serious threat to us.

In May Hawking said he believed humans could travel millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet. If spaceships are built that can fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Options: ReplyQuote
We'll Try Again..and Again..and Again
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:11PM

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said.

"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.

Related Links
Time Travel Is Possible, Says Stephen Hawking
Don’t Talk to Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Time of Reckoning for Obama, Pelosi Cruise Prices Near Record Lows Again Buffett's Dairy Queen Chilly on Frozen Yogurt Lawsuit Escaped Arizona Inmates Believed to be Hiding in Yellowstone Park Unlocking Mystery of Civil War-Era Submarine That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or about 50,000 years using current rocket science.

Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."

This is not the first time Hawking has warned of impending planetary doom. In 2006, the physicist warned that Earth was at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out. And lately, Hawking has become quite outspoken.

In April, he warned of the dangers of communicating with aliens, telling the Discovery Channel that extra-terrestrials are almost certain to exist -- and humanity should avoid contact with them at all cost.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,†he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.â€

The answer, he suggests, is that most of alien life will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals -- the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history -- and they could pose a serious threat to us.

In May Hawking said he believed humans could travel millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet. If spaceships are built that can fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Options: ReplyQuote
I feel better now...
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: August 09, 2010 05:25PM

ty

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Snapple ()
Date: August 09, 2010 06:16PM

We don't have the technology to colonize other planets yet, and we sure as hell can't get enough stuff into space using chemical rockets. We can't do anything useful other than probes, satellites and MAYBE a manned Mars mission, until we figure out how to get a lot more stuff up there. The only plausible ways we know of to do that are with a space elevator or a Project Orion-style nuclear pulse ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2010 06:17PM by Snapple.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: ;] ()
Date: August 09, 2010 06:57PM

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never understood the whole "time would slow
> down if you travel faster than the speed of light"
> thing...
>
> How did they come up with that? It doesn't really
> make sense to me... Does it have something to do
> with time being relative?
>
> Anyone have enough of a grasp on that concept to
> explain it?


Here's a really clear explanation:


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: ThePackLeader ()
Date: August 09, 2010 07:27PM

Whoever wrote that article is fairly ignorant. Einstein's Theory of Relativity postulated that no spaceship could travel faster than the speed of light, due to the limitations placed upon an object containing mass (ie, Mass becomes infinite at the speed of light). Therefore, the time comparison is faulty at best, and in fact, if you could travel faster than light you might actually go back in time.

Also, the time dilation to speed of light comparison issue can be witnessed through the actions of the space station. The ISS travels nowhere near the actual speed of light, but due to its prolonged high speed orbit, unadjusted clocks onboard the ISS do in fact fall back in correlation to those on Earth (By milliseconds, but nonetheless they do slow down in comparison).

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Gravis ()
Date: August 09, 2010 07:44PM

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whoever wrote that article is fairly ignorant.
> Einstein's Theory of Relativity postulated that no
> spaceship could travel faster than the speed of
> light


no, it's that it could not accelerate to the speed of light. there was no reference the stuff already traveling faster than the speed of light.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."095042938540

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: yes you can ()
Date: August 09, 2010 07:54PM

You can go faster than the speed of light. It has been proven in this short video.



Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: ThePackLeader ()
Date: August 09, 2010 07:59PM

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ThePackLeader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whoever wrote that article is fairly ignorant.
> > Einstein's Theory of Relativity postulated that
> no
> > spaceship could travel faster than the speed of
> > light
>
> no, it's that it could not accelerate to the speed
> of light. there was no reference the stuff
> already traveling faster than the speed of light.


To attain a speed however, you have to first accelerate, and therefore if mass cannot accelerate past the speed of light, then it cannot attain faster than light speed travel.

There is an obvious way around this though, simply eliminate mass.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Gravis ()
Date: August 09, 2010 08:03PM

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To attain a speed however, you have to first
> accelerate


that is your assumption.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."095042938540

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: August 09, 2010 08:37PM

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for your explanation...
>
> That helps a little... But that really doesn't
> explain what Mr. Hawking said about one day in
> super lightspeed travel being the equivalent of
> one Earth year...

The key word is "equivalent." Time doesn't actually speed up or slow down, because there is no such thing as time. What we know as "time" is just an arbitrary measuring system of the Earth's movement around the sun. You could add more hours to your day if you want; just start having 45 minute hours. Of course, nobody's gonna know what you're talking about if you say, "Meet me at half-past 14 o'clock."

> In other words, he's saying that the Earth would
> age faster than you would...
>
> In your example, wouldn't The Flash age faster
> than the Earth? Since everything seems to be
> moving in slow motion to him?

I can't remember how aging works. A stationary clock ticks faster than one moving at light speed. So the Flash would theoretically outlive those around them, as "time" is progressing slower for him.

Keep in mind that we're sitting on a rock going about 67,000 miles per hour around the sun. Even when we're motionless, we're still moving through space at that speed. Now imagine seeing something move an actual 50 miles per hour; it would look like it isn't moving at all.

> How could fast travel cause you to age at a
> different speed than anything else? Wouldn't it
> just seem like time slowed down?
>
> If you had a clock, in your vehicle, set to Earth
> time (assuming the clock could still function)
> wouldn't the five minutes that passed still be
> five minutes Earth time regardless of the speed?

Yes. The clock moving at the speed of light would be slower than the Earth clock after a five minute measurement, in theory. However, it's the Theory of Relativity because we currently have no way to send a clock (let alone a person) traveling at light speed to test it out.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 09, 2010 08:46PM

First of all I think you would have to create your own gravitational field INSIDE the space craft, or your body might not be able to handle acceleration/ deceleration. Also we could not percieve anything at the speed of light, due to physical limitations of the eye.

Time travel to me involves traveling faster than the plane of our time will contain. Essentially breaking through or creating a rift in the fabric of time. This also might involve transfering to a similar PARALEL DIMENSION, that is similar in appearance to ours.

near- light speed travel effect of slowing down the clocks might be due to the intertia/ sheer forces of traveling at such speeds acting as would friction from wind on a car.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: not sure ()
Date: August 09, 2010 08:47PM

we really do not understand the true nature of matter or light, we cannot say for sure if we can or cannot travel faster than light. It's current theory that suggests that we cannot travel faster than light and current theory could be wrong or incomplete at best.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: [User banned] ()
Date: August 09, 2010 09:42PM

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never understood the whole "time would slow
> down if you travel faster than the speed of light"
> thing...
>
> How did they come up with that? It doesn't really
> make sense to me... Does it have something to do
> with time being relative?
>
> Anyone have enough of a grasp on that concept to
> explain it?


What are the implications for the nature of reality if the speed of light is constant?

This question was the starting point for Einstein's theory.

And if you think about it, the implications are pretty weird. In short, because the speed of light is constant, we must change the way we understand the meaning of time.

For example, if you fire a bullet a bullet that goes 100 mph from a car going 50 mph, the speed of the bullet will be 100 + 50, or 150 mph. (That's Newtonian physics.)

But if you shine a flashlight while standing still, OR from a car traveling at 50 mph, the light will travel at the exact same speed. (Something Newtonian physics does not account for.)

(For purposes of clarity, both the bullet and light hypotheticals assume movement through a vacuum, i.e., no cross-winds to affect the bullet's speed, and no change in medium that might affect the light speed).)

In a sense, the theory of relativity (which might more aptly be named the theory of invariance) is reverse-engineered from this starting point, i.e., the constancy of the speed of light.

To get a handle on the idea of time slowing down, I would suggest:

Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpbGuuGosAY&NR=1 [The narrator says that Einstein solved the mystery of "what gravity is." I don't think that's quite accurate; we know how gravity behaves, but not what it is as such.]


Read Chapter 12 in this book (an "idiot's guide" book, but well-written; to grasp Einstein's discovery, it's very helpful to understand the existing science that he built upon): http://books.google.com/books?id=875TTxildJ0C&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=%22If+the+speed+of+light+is+constant,+*%22&source=bl&ots=W9wxOs0Vje&sig=S2cDhif1o-w3qoq2rjkExM8m_sk&hl=en&ei=DppgTJTtI8GC8gb224m2DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=%22If%20the%20speed%20of%20light%20is%20constant%2C%20*%22&f=false


Watch this video (somewhat rambling, first 6 minutes are bs, and he gets to the point around the 16-minute mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kdq_1bcAYs&feature=related (Note in particular the discussion of the "twin effect" at about 25:00 as to the question of whether time dilation is actual or not.)


With these principles in hand, you can use Google to fill in the blanks in your understanding.

And thus the ignorance of the ignorant will perish, and the intelligence of the intelligent will multiply.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: [User banned] ()
Date: August 09, 2010 09:46PM

P.S. When you've figured it out, please explain it to me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 09, 2010 10:11PM

Watched the Einstein video.

On first glance, his theory seems plausible. But it is not.

Why? Because it is 1 (one) dimensional thinking.

If this is the case then why are we not floating away in outer space towards the sun?

Also what explains some gases being affected by gravity and others not.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: [User banned] ()
Date: August 09, 2010 10:32PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Watched the Einstein video.
>
> On first glance, his theory seems plausible. But
> it is not.
>
> Why? Because it is 1 (one) dimensional thinking.
>
> If this is the case then why are we not floating
> away in outer space towards the sun?

Because of gravity.

Both Newton and Einstein would agree that the force of gravity keeps planets in their orbits; as noted, the Newtonian laws of gravity were sufficiently accurate to plot the course of a rocket that landed men on the moon.

Where they disagreed is respecting the speed of gravity, which Newton assumed could be faster than the speed of light.


> Also what explains some gases being affected by
> gravity and others not.

Are you referring to something in that video. If so, what?

Gravity does affect gases, as explained here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_Gravity_pull_on_gases_and_if_so_why_and_how

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 09, 2010 11:36PM

Gases aren't affected by gravity?

Hmmmm, that's funny.

There is a huge thing called Jupiter, that is made up of primarily gases. What is holding them together if they are not affected by gravity, that's what I am refering to.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Britdrnva~ ()
Date: August 10, 2010 04:06PM

I think it's fairly simple - when you increase your speed you decrease the time. So for example I want to walk from here to California (10 hrs a day x 3 mph = 30 miles/3000 = 100 days)...I want to ride my bicycle to CA (8hrs a day x 15mph = 120 miles/3000 = 25 days)...I want to fly to CA (6hrs x 500mph = 3000miles = <1 day)...I want to go faster than the speed of light to CA (.00000000000000000001 x 187k p/second = an infinitesimally minute of time to get to CA).


Time and space are linked as one really. So the faster you go for you the distance you cover in terms of time becomes much more decreased. Since we all travel in space at a constant factor we perceive time as we do, but say you fly in a plane for example to Europe time shifts forward...tis a similar analogy but much greater with traveling faster than the speed of light.

Given this, I do not believe it is possible to travel back in time. But one could travel forward in time if one were able to travel faster than the speed of light.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: August 10, 2010 04:36PM

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given this, I do not believe it is possible to
> travel back in time. But one could travel
> forward in time if one were able to travel faster
> than the speed of light.

This was a really great post up until this part.

If you can go FORWARD in time while traveling FORWARD at the speed of light, then you just go in REVERSE at the speed of light to go BACK in time.

I mean, hello. Superman did it. Duh.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 10, 2010 05:00PM

I don't really like this analogy because time did not change, call home and check if you don't believe me. You have just crossed into a different time zone, relative to what part of the planet you stop at. Time has not changed.

The only possible way I see time being affected, is to travel so fast, that gravity no longer has an effect. This lack of friction if you will, potentially might create a condition at the atomic level that could be seen as a halt of the aging process for that period of time you were traveling at light speed or greater. Other than that, a physical rift in time, or wormhole would have to be created for your craft to travel through, to achieve anything related to time travel.

Remember this also, if you are not percieving time like the rest of us, most likely you would be in a different dimension all together. Even if that dimension looked like ours, it would just be called a paralel dimension and you might not know the difference.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: August 10, 2010 05:03PM

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Britdrnva~ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Given this, I do not believe it is possible to
> > travel back in time. But one could travel
> > forward in time if one were able to travel
> faster
> > than the speed of light.
>
> This was a really great post up until this part.
>
> If you can go FORWARD in time while traveling
> FORWARD at the speed of light, then you just go in
> REVERSE at the speed of light to go BACK in time.
>
> I mean, hello. Superman did it. Duh.

This was just covered on Wormhole with Morgan Freeman last night. The supposition is that by using a black hole (some feature of it) you could travel back in time. It's kind of goofy though - the way they were talking you aren't really traveling forward in time, you are just going from point A to point B in a relative way (speed) compared to someone else getting there a little slower. So that when you reach point B you would have spent 4 years doing it, but the folks traveling at a slower speed (relative to you) on the outside would have spent 100 years instead.

Personally I think it has more to do with suspension of Einstein's rules with some form of new field (which has not been developed yet) that will create a bubble with a set of rules different from current physics. Kind of like a pocket dimension that lets you get around the rules of our universe. Yeah.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: August 10, 2010 05:29PM

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was just covered on Wormhole with Morgan
> Freeman last night. The supposition is that by
> using a black hole (some feature of it) you could
> travel back in time. It's kind of goofy though -
> the way they were talking you aren't really
> traveling forward in time, you are just going from
> point A to point B in a relative way (speed)
> compared to someone else getting there a little
> slower. So that when you reach point B you would
> have spent 4 years doing it, but the folks
> traveling at a slower speed (relative to you) on
> the outside would have spent 100 years instead.
>
> Personally I think it has more to do with
> suspension of Einstein's rules with some form of
> new field (which has not been developed yet) that
> will create a bubble with a set of rules different
> from current physics. Kind of like a pocket
> dimension that lets you get around the rules of
> our universe. Yeah.

Well thank you, Officer Buzzkill.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: A Flock of Seagulls ()
Date: August 10, 2010 05:58PM

When you look at the star Betelgeuse (pronounced Beetle' juice), the light you see left it over 400 years ago, in the late 1500's.

The light we see from stars in the Andromeda Galaxy left it more than 2 million years ago.

In other words, every time you look at a star you're taking a time machine to the past.

Young people, raised on "instant messaging," may at first bridle at the thought that the most recent information we can get from a neighbor galaxy might be 2 million years old.

But the thing of it is, there's magic everywhere in this bitch.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: -SBS-_ ()
Date: August 10, 2010 09:18PM

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it's fairly simple - when you increase
> your speed you decrease the time. So for example
> I want to walk from here to California (10 hrs a
> day x 3 mph = 30 miles/3000 = 100 days)...I want
> to ride my bicycle to CA (8hrs a day x 15mph = 120
> miles/3000 = 25 days)...I want to fly to CA (6hrs
> x 500mph = 3000miles = <1 day)...I want to go
> faster than the speed of light to CA
> (.00000000000000000001 x 187k p/second = an
> infinitesimally minute of time to get to CA).
>
>
> Time and space are linked as one really. So the
> faster you go for you the distance you cover in
> terms of time becomes much more decreased. Since
> we all travel in space at a constant factor we
> perceive time as we do, but say you fly in a plane
> for example to Europe time shifts forward...tis a
> similar analogy but much greater with traveling
> faster than the speed of light.
>
> Given this, I do not believe it is possible to
> travel back in time. But one could travel
> forward in time if one were able to travel faster
> than the speed of light.


Stupidest post of the day.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: August 10, 2010 09:43PM

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This was just covered on Wormhole with Morgan
> > Freeman last night. The supposition is that by
> > using a black hole (some feature of it) you
> could
> > travel back in time. It's kind of goofy though
> -
> > the way they were talking you aren't really
> > traveling forward in time, you are just going
> from
> > point A to point B in a relative way (speed)
> > compared to someone else getting there a little
> > slower. So that when you reach point B you
> would
> > have spent 4 years doing it, but the folks
> > traveling at a slower speed (relative to you)
> on
> > the outside would have spent 100 years instead.
> >
> > Personally I think it has more to do with
> > suspension of Einstein's rules with some form
> of
> > new field (which has not been developed yet)
> that
> > will create a bubble with a set of rules
> different
> > from current physics. Kind of like a pocket
> > dimension that lets you get around the rules of
> > our universe. Yeah.
>
> Well thank you, Officer Buzzkill.

Just the facts ma'am. Just the facts.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: huh??? ()
Date: August 11, 2010 02:28PM

I don't really get it either, and don't think anyone has really explained it here. Like travelling to CA, by walking, biking, by plane, etc. -- your're moving faster so you just get there faster, but time itself didn't accelerate or slow down.

It takes 8 minutes for the light from the Sun to reach Earth, so that light is 8 minutes old.

So if I travel at light-speed to the Sun and back, it would take 16 minutes. If I took a clock with me, it would show that 16 minutes had passed.

For someone on Earth, I would have been gone for 16 minutes.

So I have never been able to grasp the Theory either.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: August 11, 2010 03:31PM

huh??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't really get it either, and don't think
> anyone has really explained it here. Like
> travelling to CA, by walking, biking, by plane,
> etc. -- your're moving faster so you just get
> there faster, but time itself didn't accelerate or
> slow down.
>
> It takes 8 minutes for the light from the Sun to
> reach Earth, so that light is 8 minutes old.
>
> So if I travel at light-speed to the Sun and back,
> it would take 16 minutes. If I took a clock with
> me, it would show that 16 minutes had passed.
>
> For someone on Earth, I would have been gone for
> 16 minutes.
>
> So I have never been able to grasp the Theory
> either.

On the ship heading to the sun and back at light speed, only say 2 minutes would pass for you inside. So when you got back to the Earth it would seem as if it only took you 2 minutes to get there and back, while 16 minutes passed on Earth. See?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Harry Tuttle ()
Date: August 11, 2010 03:38PM

Why? How did anyone come up with that?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> On the ship heading to the sun and back at light
> speed, only say 2 minutes would pass for you
> inside. So when you got back to the Earth it would
> seem as if it only took you 2 minutes to get there
> and back, while 16 minutes passed on Earth. See?

Signatures are for fags

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: August 11, 2010 03:48PM

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why? How did anyone come up with that?
>

It's Einstein's theory of special relatvity. A frame of reference moving at the speed of light relative to a stationary observer will "experience" less time than the stationary person.

You've really never heard of time dilation?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: August 11, 2010 03:49PM

Here is a discussion of the reasons:

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/timedilation.html
tdgraphformula.gif

http://www.andersoninstitute.com/default.asp

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Britdrnva~ ()
Date: August 11, 2010 03:51PM

I don't believe the wormhole theory can take anyone into the past that is the realm of science fiction. The past can never be realised again (i.e. repeatedly). The future, by acceleration through space > time is attainable. Your body would age as it naturally does so if you travel 2 million light years and it takes 1hr you would age that 1hr but things traveling at say light speed would be 2 million years old. In affect you've traveled 2 million years forward in time and aged only an hour.

I believe wormholes may possibly hold the answer to exceed the speed of light also, if I recall recently the speed of light has been exceeded.

A flock of seagulls wrote: "In other words, every time you look at a star you're taking a time machine to the past."

In a sense yes...the light we see from stars is very old history in a sense and we can glean a lot based on historical data from one set of stars vs another but it isn't the same as a time machine going into the past - we are, in affect just receiving the data that happens to be quite old. We still cannot go back 400 years and be there per se. We could move forward though if we could go faster than light.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 04:23PM

>It's Einstein's theory of special relatvity. A frame of reference moving at the speed of light relative to a stationary observer will "experience" less time than the stationary person.


BS. If it takes a fucking sunray 8 MINUTES @light speed, it will take your craft 8 MINUTES.

NOT 1 minute!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 04:29PM

In my theory, you may view the past by heading away from the earth FASTER than the speed of light. Because if you can get ahead of the light being omitted in past history, you could potentially view past events, in the same fashion as we view 2 million year old light from stars because we are so far away.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: August 11, 2010 04:29PM

Yes, 8 minutes as measured by a stationary observer here on earth. But as measured by the clock on your spaceship, it would take noticeably less time.

There's no such thing as absolute time or space, it's all relative to the speed you are traveling and the speed of those observing you.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> BS. If it takes a fucking sunray 8 MINUTES @light
> speed, it will take your craft 8 MINUTES.
>
> NOT 1 minute!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 04:50PM

Wrong.

The only change on a mechanical clock would be a physical strain possibly due to g forces, making it not work as efficiently giving a mech clock a slowing effect. IMO. Time for the trip stays constant for light or spacecraft.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: lightning ()
Date: August 11, 2010 04:56PM

who cares? We will never go back in time, in the future, faster than the speed of light, to the next gallaxy, through a wormhole ( except troll@aol), out a wormhole or to the far reaches of space. Go take a class in quantum physics, if not you are just going to drive yourself nuts.... Thats if your not already

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: August 11, 2010 04:58PM

This has all been well understood by scientists for more than 100 years. You'd get an F in college-level physics.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong.
>
> The only change on a mechanical clock would be a
> physical strain possibly due to g forces, making
> it not work as efficiently giving a mech clock a
> slowing effect. IMO. Time for the trip stays
> constant for light or spacecraft.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 05:09PM

Yeah whatever retard, your talking about time perception, I am talking about elapsed time for two equal trips by seperate objects. By the way, 'Science' understands SOOOOOO little, it is a true testament to your stupidty that you would use such a statement to validfiy your stance.

So 'The Meeper', You get a 'F' for FAGGOT!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: August 11, 2010 05:29PM

Elapsed time = the difference between the time an event ends and the time the event began. In other words, time perception.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah whatever retard, your talking about time
> perception, I am talking about elapsed time for
> two equal trips by seperate objects. By the way,
> 'Science' understands SOOOOOO little, it is a true
> testament to your stupidty that you would use such
> a statement to validfiy your stance.
>
> So 'The Meeper', You get a 'F' for FAGGOT!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 05:38PM

Sorry, WRONG AGAIN.

In otherwords;

Elapsed Time- does NOT = Time Perception!
fixed it for ya : )

Me thinks it's time for you to hang the Lab coat Meepy, and
trade it in for a Molly Maid smock.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2010 05:39PM by Troll@AOL.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: August 11, 2010 05:48PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Elapsed Time- does NOT = Time Perception!

Well then explain to me how they're different.

I'm sure the logic you use will be so convoluted and flawed it will be very amusing to read it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: -SBS-_ ()
Date: August 11, 2010 05:59PM

Troll@AOL, you're really living up to your screen name on this one.

If you go traveling off in a spaceship at, say 95% the speed of light, and you simply travel in a big circle ending up where you started, and this trip takes you 1 year from your perspective, to someone on Earth, the ship would have been traveling for a much longer time.

Time dilation is not just a theory. It has been empirically proven.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:02PM

Okay.

Time measurement on the spacecraft may be affected by the laws of physics acting on the interior workings of the clock( possibly slowing electrical function down even on a digital clock because electricity may be subject to gravity also). Kinda like if you shake a clock real hard, it may alter it's time reading.


This does NOT CHANGE TIME. Only your perception of time is changed inside the craft looking @ the affected clock. Time remains a constant and you are no younger or older when you get back.

Now how silly was that?

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:07PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, WRONG AGAIN.
>
> In otherwords;
>
> Elapsed Time- does NOT = Time Perception!
> fixed it for ya : )
>
> Me thinks it's time for you to hang the Lab coat
> Meepy, and
> trade it in for a Molly Maid smock.
>
>
> .

There is no such thing as time. It's an arbitrary human concept. We perceive time the way we do because of the speed at which we're hurtling through space.

Elapsed time IS time perception. You can't determine the elapsed time until you perceive time, because how would you quantify something you can't perceive?

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:10PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now how silly was that?


The notion that Einstein was wrong, and that time really slows down because of g forces shaking up the clock, is 100% silly. Hilarious actually.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: -SBS-_ ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:10PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay.
>
> Time measurement on the spacecraft may be affected
> by the laws of physics acting on the interior
> workings of the clock( possibly slowing electrical
> function down even on a digital clock because
> electricity may be subject to gravity also).
> Kinda like if you shake a clock real hard, it may
> alter it's time reading.
>
>
> This does NOT CHANGE TIME. Only your perception of
> time is changed inside the craft looking @ the
> affected clock. Time remains a constant and you
> are no younger or older when you get back.
>
> Now how silly was that?

Your examples are pretty damned silly. In the year aboard the spacecraft I described above, you would age 1 "year". When you got back, your theoretical twin would have aged considerably more.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:16PM

Your ability to percieve time on a space craft may be affected by multiple variables, this does not change OUR perception of EARTH TIME.

So again time perception has nothing to do with a constant measurement of time on Earth. Basically you would just get somewhere faster than normal @the speed of light, and due to your tremendous speed, you might be able to temporarily halt the aging process.

But it would still take you a YEAR traveling @lightspeed, to complete your trip.

Even if your trip was some big circle, your not going to be seen at the end of it until your done traveling for ONE YEAR @ LIGHTSPEED!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:17PM



Attachments:
einstein421141.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:19PM

GAY! ^ ^ ^

Nice work though.
You must have done that @the speed of light.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:28PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
> So again time perception has nothing to do with a
> constant measurement of time on Earth. Basically
> you would just get somewhere faster than normal
> @the speed of light, and due to your tremendous
> speed, you might be able to temporarily halt the
> aging process.


Well, thank you, Bill Nye. Where did you learn that, Sunday School?

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:31PM

Woah Meph, that was an intelligent response to what I said, HARLDY!


Good to see you have NOTHING to say. (@least nothing intelligable)


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:39PM

I guess an intelligent response would have been along the lines of, "I totally agree, Einstein and everyone else are complete idiots," right?

Maybe you just can't think straight because you're too distracted by my SWEATY BALLS.

God bless.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: -SBS-_ ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:40PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your ability to percieve time on a space craft may
> be affected by multiple variables, this does not
> change OUR perception of EARTH TIME.

If by "OUR" you mean those on Earth, then yes.

> So again time perception has nothing to do with a
> constant measurement of time on Earth. Basically
> you would just get somewhere faster than normal
> @the speed of light, and due to your tremendous
> speed, you might be able to temporarily halt the
> aging process.

Most of this makes no sense.

> But it would still take you a YEAR traveling
> @lightspeed, to complete your trip.

This is simply reversing the perspective. If a year passes as experienced by someone on Earth, as far as the people on the ship are concerned, the trip would seem to take only a month or so.

> Even if your trip was some big circle, your not
> going to be seen at the end of it until your done
> traveling for ONE YEAR @ LIGHTSPEED!

You don't have to travel AT LIGHTSPEED to experience time dilation. My ship is doing 95% the speed of light.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: MrMephisto ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:45PM

-SBS-_ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Troll@AOL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Basically you would just get somewhere faster than normal
> > @the speed of light, and due to your tremendous
> > speed, you might be able to temporarily halt
> > the aging process.
>
> Most of this makes no sense.

-SBS-, how dumb are you? He's saying that traveling at light speed will get you someplace faster than if you weren't traveling at the speed of light. And maybe you'll age slower, I don't know.

DUH!

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: eesh ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:45PM

-

Blessed are the murderous.
Attachments:
633641924851437946-TheyseemerollinJealousyTheyhatin.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:47PM

Well then.

Keep FLYING THE FUCK ON OUTTA HERE in your space ship @95% Lightspeed, -SBS-!

Assertions with no factual explanation or attempt as such, makes the statements above your PERSONAL OPINION.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2010 06:51PM by Troll@AOL.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: International Shoe ()
Date: August 11, 2010 06:50PM

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no such thing as time. It's an arbitrary human concept.


'Cept for the fact your ass is 43 minutes older now - at THIS POINT - which is slipping away even as I key the words! - than you were when you wrote that.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: eesh ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:05PM

Anyone remember this movie from the 80s? The kid travels at light speed and returns to Earth still as a kid but everyone around him has aged.




-

Blessed are the murderous.
Attachments:
flight-of-the-navigator.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@A0L ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:07PM

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone remember this movie from the 80s? The kid
> travels at light speed and returns to Earth still
> as a kid but everyone around him has aged.


IOW, Rip Van Winkle in a spaceship.

edit by Cary: USER BANNED, IMPERSONATION PROHIBITED: Fios Troll #1. Account locked.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:09PM

Quit it, GAY-Troll IMPOSTER.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:11PM

Flight of the Navigator was one of my alltime movie favorites! That and ET.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: TroII@A0L ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:12PM

It is YOU who is the IMPOSTER.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:13PM

Sorry, you should change YOUR screenname to be; GAY@A0L.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: TroII@A0L ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:15PM

Only problem being, the black hole of your ass has sucked up ALL the GAY in this forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOOSERS just pack your fudge in DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:18PM

Oops. Sorry about that : \

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Lets try this again ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:20PM

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said.

"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.

Related Links
Time Travel Is Possible, Says Stephen Hawking
Don’t Talk to Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Time of Reckoning for Obama, Pelosi Cruise Prices Near Record Lows Again Buffett's Dairy Queen Chilly on Frozen Yogurt Lawsuit Escaped Arizona Inmates Believed to be Hiding in Yellowstone Park Unlocking Mystery of Civil War-Era Submarine That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or about 50,000 years using current rocket science.

Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."

This is not the first time Hawking has warned of impending planetary doom. In 2006, the physicist warned that Earth was at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out. And lately, Hawking has become quite outspoken.

In April, he warned of the dangers of communicating with aliens, telling the Discovery Channel that extra-terrestrials are almost certain to exist -- and humanity should avoid contact with them at all cost.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,†he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.â€

The answer, he suggests, is that most of alien life will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals -- the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history -- and they could pose a serious threat to us.

In May Hawking said he believed humans could travel millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet. If spaceships are built that can fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Harry Tuttle ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:24PM

So is it the case that the faster you travel, the slower you age? Or is there something else to this time dilation that I'm missing?

Signatures are for fags

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Dude ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:31PM

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So is it the case that the faster you travel, the
> slower you age?


That's just, like, your perception, man.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:32PM

To a point you are correct. But speeds great enough to free your body of the effects of physics would be necessary.

You don't age slower by going 95mph in a 55 zone.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:34PM

Also, one of the effects of lightspeed travel may be a warping of your perception of time. Basically you might have been gone for a year, but only felt like it was a month.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: August 11, 2010 07:42PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Basically you might have been gone for a year, but
> only felt like it was a month.


If you were gone for a year at light-speed, it would have felt like a year. Everything in your frame of reference would've felt normal. Your clock would tick normal seconds, your heart would be beat normally, etc. You would have perceived one year passing.

But when you came back to earth, you would notice that earth clocks were moving much faster than yours while you were gone. You were gone for a year, while many years passed on earth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Date: August 11, 2010 07:56PM

Special relativity time dilation is NOT just perception.

To wit:

[A] Hafele and Keating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment, in 1971, flew caesium atomic clocks
east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed
time against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory.

Two opposite effects came into play.

The clocks were expected to age MORE QUICKLY (show a larger elapsed time) than
the reference clock, since they were in a higher (weaker) GRAVITATIONAL potential
for most of the trip.

But ALSO ~~~~~~ CONTRASTINGLY ~~~~~~ the moving clocks were expected to
age MORE SLOWLY because of THE SPEED of their travel.

The gravitational effect was the larger, and the clocks suffered a net gain in
elapsed time.

To within experimental error, the net gain was consistent with the difference
between the predicted gravitational gain and the predicted velocity time loss.

In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom reported their
limited replication of this experiment.

The NPL experiment differed from the original in that the caesium clocks were
sent on a shorter trip (London–Washington D.C. return), but the clocks were more
accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity.



[2] The Global Positioning System ("GPS") can be considered a CONTINUOUSLY
OPERATING EXPERIMENT in both special and general relativity.

The in-orbit clocks are CORRECTED for both special and general relativistic time
dilation effects as described above, SO THAT THEY RUN AT THE SAME RATE AS
CLOCKS ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


In short, it ain't just PERCEPTION, brah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IT'S REALLY HAPPENING!!!!!!!!!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Dude ()
Date: August 11, 2010 08:01PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't age slower by going 95mph in a 55 zone.


Well that depends on your POINT OF VIEW, doesn't it?

If you're a fucking MAYFLY - that lives for ONE DAY, or maybe only 30 MINUTES - then it seems like human beings live FOREVER - ESPECIALLY those going 95mph in
a 55 zone.

It's all RELATIVE, man.

Why do you think they call it the theory of RELATIVITY???

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 08:03PM

Trollllllllllllllllll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In short, it ain't just PERCEPTION, brah
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IT'S REALLY HAPPENING!!!!!!!!!!

Which raises the question ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ what's "REALLY" happening????

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Harry Tuttle ()
Date: August 11, 2010 08:16PM

Meeper, can you explain why this happens?

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you were gone for a year at light-speed, it
> would have felt like a year. Everything in your
> frame of reference would've felt normal. Your
> clock would tick normal seconds, your heart would
> be beat normally, etc. You would have perceived
> one year passing.
>
> But when you came back to earth, you would notice
> that earth clocks were moving much faster than
> yours while you were gone. You were gone for a
> year, while many years passed on earth.

Signatures are for fags

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: August 11, 2010 08:35PM

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Meeper, can you explain why this happens?

This video series is pretty good. Here's the part addressing time dilation, without the math. The example with light-clocks that starts about 6 minutes in is probably the easiest theoretical model to understand.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 08:41PM

My browser sux, gotta web address or a youtube search word for me Meeps?

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Srsly ()
Date: August 11, 2010 08:55PM

No one knows the WHY.

Beyond saying "because of special relativity."

In the same way that if you asked, "Why does an apple fall?" the answer would be "Because of Newtonian gravity."

We can see the phenomena, measure the phenomena, repeat the phenomena, but we don't know the WHY of it -- gravity and relativity are simply "laws," first principles, the real-world equivalents of axioms in mathematics.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: -SBS-_ ()
Date: August 11, 2010 08:57PM

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Troll@AOL Wrote:
> >
> > Basically you would just get somewhere faster than normal
> > @the speed of light, and due to your tremendous
> > speed, you might be able to temporarily halt
> > the aging process.
> >

It makes no sense in the context of the discussion whether or not time dilation is a real phenomenon. Do you get there faster than normal at the speed of light? Well, duh, but that doesn't pertain to the point under discussion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 11, 2010 09:05PM

-SBS-

you shoulda just left it @'DUH'.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Personally I think one planet per species is sufficient...
Posted by: -SBS-_ ()
Date: August 11, 2010 09:06PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well then.
>
> Keep FLYING THE FUCK ON OUTTA HERE in your space
> ship @95% Lightspeed, -SBS-!
>
> Assertions with no factual explanation or attempt
> as such, makes the statements above your PERSONAL
> OPINION.
>
>
> .

So where's all the factual explanations supporting your ignorant opnion?
I think "explanation" is beyond the scope of this thread, and your level of comprehension for that matter. Check out this link for examples of real-life experiments that have proven that time dilation is real.

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: 12AllNext
Current Page: 1 of 2


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **  **      **  **    **  ********   ******** 
 ***   ***  **  **  **  ***   **  **     **     **    
 **** ****  **  **  **  ****  **  **     **     **    
 ** *** **  **  **  **  ** ** **  ********      **    
 **     **  **  **  **  **  ****  **            **    
 **     **  **  **  **  **   ***  **            **    
 **     **   ***  ***   **    **  **            **    
This forum powered by Phorum.