Originally Posted by RJC Can you explain this a bit more please?

At minimum it would require the same kind of approach as imagining the area inside the event horizon of a black hole, reorganizing your coordinate system and such, or maybe it would even be worse than that? well What our brains can do when we are “asleep”.2. Cram night! Amiright?Anyways, there’s a practice exam, and I can’t figure this one question out for the life of me. Related Discussions:Locking of pre-july 2011 threadsUniverse-Energy-Mass-Life CompilationThe Bosnian pyramids… what do you think: are they real?photo attached this time – identify this thing??Where has the thread goneDiscussion Threads & StickiesUfcarazyHellotrash versus deleted threadsglobal warming threads If you think the topic itself or points raised in the discussion are worth another airing, start a new thread.

Originally Posted by Absum! NahIt’s the coverIt just doesn’t do it for me.The faces remind me of Janet & John. If it’s worth discussing, it’s worth the little bit of effort it would take for you, wanting the topic raised, to put the focus where you want it to frame the new discussion.

From your perspective, they would be the ones for whom time was flowing backwards. Distances would have to contract from your perspective to less than zero. In typical Robinsonian style the author takes a position grounded in the spiritual needs of people, and informed his character?s outlooks with Buddhist teachings.

The cover is for a different story. I can only guess what the consequences of that would be. My actual question is… There’s no harm in linking to a previous thread if you need to show where you got a comment or an idea from.

Rather than resurrecting it as is, pick the eyes out of the best of the earlier contributions and use those, along with your own perspective, to start a new discussion. But, because they are in different frames of reference, you never test that “commonality” by putting the clocks next to each other. Melancholy Elephants is an unexpected gem of a story about the importance of restraint in the application of copyright law. What parts of us are non-material, and what parts of us exist in other dimensions than our main ones of 3 dimensions and forward-moving time. All you can do is observe relative values or rates of change (and apply the Lorentz transform).

Could we have some opinions and guidance on old threads please. As far as my understanding exists, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? And if we even can, it would make time stand still? or even retard that time backwards? (Like a car wheel spinning really fast).

But I do have an understanding of the basics of the law, and I can argue the public policy behind the law with the best of them. This is about to be removed from Physics… If you went faster than light, I suppose you would see every beam of light moving backwards toward you as you catch up with it. If it’s worth discussing, it’s worth the little bit of effort it would take for you, wanting the topic raised, to put the focus where you want it to frame the new discussion.

Rather than resurrecting it as is, pick the eyes out of the best of the earlier contributions and use those, along with your own perspective, to start a new discussion. For a short story the piece is surprisingly well developed and deep, and it really misses very little in its thorough, multi-faceted examination of the problems that come with over-protective legislation…Please click here, or on the book cover above, to be taken to the complete review.. Maybe C because the pressure gradient force is more prevalent in the North than the South according to wikipedia…

There’s no harm in linking to a previous thread if you need to show where you got a comment or an idea from. So, once again, I ask, how can future time exist? Related Discussions:How Fast is Gravity ??Subjecteve speed always Newtonian?Faster than the speed of lightIdiotic questions…being faster than the speed of lightAnother speed of light question !?travel with timeTeleportation or Light Speed TravelTheory of relativetyWhy is it so much fasterFaster Than the Speed Of Light? To RJC, etc:I don’t think we, as a material person, could possibly go faster than light – all the laws and theories of science go against it.

Originally Posted by RJC Can you explain this a bit more please? There appears to be little point trying to make sense of anything Water Nosfim writes. SpiderHybrid Spider GoatsEducation and creativity.2 Spider Questionsthe smartest spider ever?!!Jokesspiders and their silkwhat do you see?Too old to be Spider-Man?(GMO) I guess you would note that whatever had been the last thing in front of you before you accelerated to that speed is now the first? Or maybe you would perceive yourself to have turned around https://essaywriterforhire.com/nursing-essay/
and headed the opposite direction of where you set out to go?I think we can construct a logically consistent picture of how the situation would look. ….. which could mean it’s actually a possible situation in some sense? Certainly you’re not going to get to that point by just firing rocket thrusters for a long time, though.And I’m still going to stick with my original suggestion, that it’s kind of like imagining what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole. If we can travel faster than the speed of light how can we see where we are going? I have also thought that if light has been there before then there creates an area of illumination and hence, no place that light has not travelled.I am interested in any thoughts.(…)This is based on the idea that you do not know where you are going until you are given a reference. I know one or two of those guys who practice Intellectual Property (?IP?) law, and I have to say honestly that it takes a certain type of personality to thrive in that profession.

Originally Posted by space at the centre No, not ‘reality’ so much as ‘commonality’ in that measured under identical conditions they will be measured in units of the same magnitude. you will see it double or in multi-universes My preference would be that, in a science based discussion, it’s worth revisiting if there is new information, research or observations dealing with the topic. Remember, when you resurrect an old post you’re asking the rest of us to read or re-read a whole heap of earlier comments to make sense of your new comment. Related Discussions:the scientist and the spiderSpider vs.

Originally Posted by adelady If you think the topic itself or points raised in the discussion are worth another airing, start a new thread. It seems to me there can only be those two classes of measurement; Rest or Moving; two sets of common measurements. From the perspective of others observing you from an inertial frame that perceived you to be going faster than light , time would appear to be going backwards on your space ship, and energy would be flowing into your ship instead of being radiated away from you. I don’t know… would that mean the sequence of objects in front of you would be inverted, with the furthest object away now appearing to be the nearest? As you can see, the universe as you observe it would now be a bunch of gobblely gook, craziness.

We know the inside of the horizon exists, but that doesn’t allow us to do much more than speculate about what’s actually happening in there. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne This is about to be removed from Physics… Remember, when you resurrect an old post you’re asking the rest of us to read or re-read a whole heap of earlier comments to make sense of your new comment.

When something is going back in time,one of his steady state is double place, so at least there is a statistical effect on the former. It’s just one particular poster but the topic still pertains to physics. Its also important to note that the watchlists of all forum members were erased in the software update in July.

It appears to be a cryptically expressed mixture of misunderstood science and his own wacky ideas … Thus anything from before that will not result in the contributors to those threads being notified.I still recommend locking of the pre summer 2011 threads. Related Discussions:If you were a molecular biologist…?Had a cough for 1 1/2 years now, should I see the doc?dAY aFTER TOMORROWHow to breed those little geniuses?Is this a Scientific Hypothesis?One small Chemistry problemHow to speed up my old laptop? :/Collision of two continental plates weld them together?Can this be used to prove I am not dreaming?Psychological Response But we are more than just a heap of atoms and molecules. So….. Originally Posted by Water Nosfim you will see it double or in multi-universes Can you explain this a bit more please?

Length would be contracted to less than zero, which I’m assuming means it would get inverted. Sadly I am not an expert in the field. I hadn’t really looked at it that way, I kind of thought that most members who’d already contributed to a thread would know what was on it and resent having to retype the same opinion but I guess your right if it’s old it’s easy to forget what’s been on something older.

But unless one can say that when measured from within a frame, measured natively, – as I put it – the units are the same, the Lorentz transforms mean nothing! How can you say that a time has been dilated by the Lorentz Factor unless you are using the same units? How can you determine that time or distance has been dilated/contracted if they are using units that don’t relate? For in that case dilation/contraction becomes meaningless?The fact – or conclusion – that there are different quantities of units means nothing unless the magnitude of those units is related.

Another thing to note is that observers would disagree. So the fact we think they tick “at the same” rate is actually meaningless. I’m quite happy to go along with making new threads though, are you thinking we should go with Paleoichneum’s idea for a month or Lynx’s 6 months?Also I would support Paleoichneum’s idea for locking old threads because I sometimes just look on certain members profiles to what threads they’ve started if I think their opinions are particularly valid and don’t always notice that some of these can be quite old, so locking would stop that from happening. So maybe a weightless bit of us can travel faster than light and go backwards in time.A number of proper scientific experiments, studying cosmic reactions in the upper atmosphere and monitoring the arrival-times of the cosmic particles and the normal particles; it was found that some “particles” did, actually arrive before the reaction took place, being so strange and being created by such an explosive reaction, there was enough energy for them to “break the light barrier”.Ring any bells wrt the sound barrier?The main problem is that one can only observe back in time, to prevent one killing one’s parents, or otherwise creating a contradiction.I’m also interested, but suspicious, about two more concepts in this arena:1. As a lawyer who spends a lot of time on line with fellow book lovers I am frequently asked for my opinion on copyright matters.

I’ve never been on this forum before, so here goes nothing!Given the following geostrophic currents, which is associated with the largest pressure gradienta) A current flows with a speed of 20 cm/s from the south to the northb) A current flows with a speed of 20 cm/s from the west to the eastc) A current flows with a speed of 40 cm/s from the south to the northd) A current flows with a speed of 60 cm/s from the north to the southAnyone have a clue? Thank you! =3 NahIt’s the coverIt just doesn’t do it for me.The faces remind me of Janet & John. After reading Spider Robinson?s short story Melancholy Elephants, it is pretty clear to me that he can too. The current is a balance of pressure gradient force and Coriolis force and will flow at a right angle and its velocity will be proportional to the pressure gradient.That should suffice.

But also, your internal energy due to your mass would appear to be less than zero to any observer that perceived you to be going faster than light. A geostrophic current is the assumption and the biggest clue. I am not one of those types.

My preference would be that, in a science based discussion, it’s worth revisiting if there is new information, research or observations dealing with the topic.

Related Events