Jump to content

bogz

Members
  • Posts

    347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Sorry Darby, I'm still stuck on relative mass (and gravity). Let's say an observer is very far away watching a ship moving very fast travel through an asteroid field. The ship is flying through the asteroid field and can see from looking out the window that the asteroids are hardly affected by it's local gravity. The far away observer will see the ship as being very massive because it's moving very fast. And it has a lot of gravity because it's so massive. And the asteroids are going to appear to be sucked into the gravitational "wake" left by the speeding ship. After the ship leaves the asteroid field matches the relative velocity of the observer and watches the asteroid field for a few hours. As time goes on, the asteroid field will look very different for both parties would it not? The distant observer would be watching the aftermath of a massive object passing through a bunch of asteroids, and the local space ship would see a quiet bunch of rocks that are moving pretty much the same as when the ship entered. That is the part I can't understand. What am I missing?
  2. Re: John Titor - \"We control Hawking Radiation\" Hello Darby. I found this site : http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/blackhole_bet.html which I enjoyed reading. My uneducated guess is that yes, we can control it. As I understand it, it's electromagnetic radiation which we can control up to certain levels of intensity and wavelengths. I'm pretty sure I remember you posting the amount of heat emitted by two supposed "rotating micro-singularities" that could move through time based on Tipler's model of a time machine, would be far too much radiation for his little device in the picture to handle. This link: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=120129993&blogId=383890494 gives this equation for temperature in Kelvin that comes out of a black hole. Tk = (h-bar c^3) / ( Ko GM) (h-bar = reduced Planck constant) (c = speed of light) (Ko = Boltzmann constant) (G = Gravitational constant) (M = Mass in KG) I'm not sure if I understand this, does it mean that as the mass decreases the temperature will increase? So a very small black hole will produce a very quick burst of heat? Introduce the Titors hypothetical electron injection method and that heat is not a quick burst, it's constantly there which I assume is so much heat, we can't use tiny device like Titor claimed to control it. Regarding conservation of information, I thought (until reading these pages) that information was always lost through quantum processes. As we increase the accuracy of measuring momentum of a small particle, the accuracy of the position decreases. We lose the ability to "reverse" the system, so why is this not considered lost information when there is no way to measure both with exact accuracy? Personally I'd prefer if our universe was entirely reversible, so we could look into that past and watch events as if we were there in person. If "conservation of information" is a law then doesn't it mean this will someday be possible?
  3. Does relativistic mass cause an increase in gravity though? If it does, I can't wrap my head around where tiny objects affected by this gravity really are. The local observer would not see anything abnormal as it was moving. Tiny objects around it would be affected as expected. For the distant observer they would see this very massive object tossing around these tiny objects due to the increased gravity. So where the heck are these tiny objects? Are they physically in two places at the same time. Or is it just an 'optical illusion' so to speak, because we rely on photons traveling vast distances to make said observations? The arbitrary part I've heard you explain before. I guess what I don't understand about that is what benefit would having a fixed origin give us? Would it make any equations easier to understand, or would it make certain types of physical theories possible which are ruled out today without this "point of origin". The arbitrary part doesn't bug me as much as the relative mass/gravity issue.
  4. Thx guys. I hear lots about how time is relative, and there are all kinds of thought experiments to explain how it works. And there are experiments I've heard about that prove time is relative. Mass being relative is new to me. I've never heard one example or thought experiment about it. Time gets all the attention. What about gravity? As relativistic mass increases, does it's gravity increase also? If so, does this increased gravity appear to affect nearby objects for an observer while having no effect on these same nearby objects for the local observer? That's the part that I don't understand, and can't picture in my head... Your physical position in space isn't relative also is it?
  5. so the local object moving does not feel a local increase in mass, it's just observers who would see that object has being heavier than if they were observing from inside the moving object... so mass is relative just like time?? for some reason that's even more counter-intuitive to me...
  6. I sent RMT a PM about this but I'm kind of impatient and wanted to see if anyone else could help. When you approach the speed of light and that "mass increase" happens, does your mass increase from your own point of view? Or does it only appear to increase to an observer? In other words, is mass relative similar to how time is relative?
  7. That chat transcript makes me think of Alex Jones for some reason hehe...
  8. Has anyone calculated the length of the smoke trail compared to how long it took the spiral to form (looked pretty quick to form when I saw the videos). I'd like to see a video of an out of control rocket leaving a trail and compare how long that one takes to form a spiral of equal length. It also dissipated pretty quick. If it was a super fast spiralling out of control rocket, what kind of trail does it produce that fizzles out in a couple of seconds. Didn't really "dissipate" like smoke or condensation, or look like it was ignited. It simply vanished from the center in an accelerating outward spiral. My guess is it was a hoaxer projecting something on the clouds, not a rocket.
  9. So you can't predict the future, but the past is fair game.... Eeeehxcellent. /tents fingers
  10. The Time Machine ok but in the TTW did they ever explain what "part" of him was traveling in time? I think the tv show Quantum Leap and TTW are in a special class. They're act you like can send whatever controls the mind/soul back in time and that it's just a natural easy thing for the universe to handle, far easier than sending back a bunch of matter. Reality is like a WORM drive. Write once, read _many_ /wave
  11. author: Gerard 't Hooft url: http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408v1 (The 22 page PDF download available on this page, left hand side of the page) Everyone smile for the camera ;-)
  12. Re: Final Warning from 2026 For All Humanity! URGE Nope, I know who Z is. He's a dude. And his "Great" story is a total rip off of the movie Frequency. At least in that movie there was some big storm or norther lights or something that explained how it all went down. This guy expect YOU to believe that the cheap little router you bought at Wall-mart can send radio waves to the future.
  13. Re: TIP FOR \"The Ladies...\" :) - IRISH GUYS Is the key to being called a revolutionary rather than something worse, to take over a small country rather than a large one?
  14. The guy in the you tube link I posted said something like that. He's try to say that Tony Hawk is the better game... kids today I tell ya... TH: Proving Ground is awsome though, I've never enjoyed a skating game so much.
×
×
  • Create New...