Originally Posted By: CiderPhysics would be better, though.actually, I would tend to agree. But I'm a bit of a physics nerd
-
Just a curiosity
-
Originally Posted By: unsupervised Originally Posted By: CiderPhysics would be better, though.actually, I would tend to agree. But I'm a bit of a physics nerd Me too........Count me in on Physics, Cemistry and Maths. I love science and I hate fish.
-
Originally Posted By: SayaI love science and I hate fish. Ever try salmon?
-
I read something similar concerning the confirmation of E=MCC. According to that article, quarks make up 5% with the gluons taking up nothing (they have no mass). As a result, the remaining mass must be in the form of energy, thus confirming Einstein's equation. Use of the lattice structure was required, just as found in this article.
-
I think I read that same article but can't find it again. Something else you might enjoy reading.
-
never tried "any kind of fish" in my whole life....my mom/dad found I was very allergic to fish when I was 6 months oldTo me: fish = rashes all over + lots of itching so i hate fish/seafood.....only cooking/eating.but I do like watching tiny colorful fish on TV ....i like them as long as they are not near me or being cooked
-
If you've never had any kind of fish, how do you know you're allergic to it? Seriously, our pediatrician (I have a daughter a little over a year old) told us to lay off any kind of seafood until our girl was at least a year old. He said that what you described happens if you give a child seafood too soon...and then they stay allergic to it, possibly for the rest of their lives. But if you wait until at least a year, the chances go way down.Sorry to hear you're missing out.
-
I think that the further we get from Einstein, the further off path we get. Einstein once described space not as flat, but as curved. So in that aspect, the fabric of space, although it may not change, is not consistant. Eistein described the curve as that similar to a potatoe chip...and also said that if you start off in one direction, you'll eventual end up where you started. Combining these two ideas, I created a picture of space that looks like a donut (or a bagel, if you prefer). Regardless of which direction you start off, you end up back again...and a potato chip fits the curve of a donut. However, this donut is not static...it is contantly rolling out on top (as you're looking down on it) and back in on the underside. As you sit on the donut, you can only see 90 degrees in opposite directions, and......oh well...too complicated to describe in words. I'd have to draw a picture.
-
I get reactions you dont wanna hear about. I wonder if my parents did fed me anything when I was 1 yr old or younger I m gonna ask my mom about it.
-
There's actually loads upon loads of discussion on the shape of space. In fact, if you were able to go in one direction of space and end up at the same location, you could travel backwards in time. However, I think that one would have to travel as fast as light in order to actually get to the same spot, though. For you to go back in time with that method, you'd have to go faster than the speed of light as well :PThose articles are too short :S
-
Originally Posted By: CiderThose articles are too short :S Designed to coincide with the attention span of the average reader these days.
-
Nerds.
:grin: -
Looks around Where!? Where!?
-
welcome to the Nerdery
-
Originally Posted By: CiderIn fact, if you were able to go in one direction of space and end up at the same location, you could travel backwards in time.Yes you could...but no, you couldn't. Time, in my model, is relative. You would go backwards in time, but in a different portion of space than where you started out from...on the opposite side of the "donut" from where you started, to be specific. Then you'd arrive back where you started from at the same time you left, relative to an outside observer...but time having passed only in the forward direction for yourself. Follow me?
-
Originally Posted By: damienNerds.
-
at school im in a good mood, on a friday. it goes by so slow though. but if i have to work on a friday, everything sucks because its always busy, rude customers, annoying customers, assholes coming in 5 minutes before closing and eating inside, etc. i hate it.
-
Time should be relative in any model :P Maybe I'm not entirely grasping your toroidal model, but I'd see arriving at the same time that one left as traveling around at the speed of light, which would cause time to effectively stop for the observer, I believe. And if the observer went faster than the speed of light around it, it would be like going back in time.
One thing that I always think of when I start thinking about time and time travel is Merlin in The Once and Future King. I wonder what it would be like to be experiencing time going backwards.
-
Hmmm. OK...let me simplify a bit using a 2-dimensional model. Imagine you are on the edge of a circle...doesn't matter where as time is always moving forward at the appropriate speed where you are at (time is relative). But, viewing the circle from above the plane, it can be seen that time slows down to zero (relative) 90 degrees along the circles circumferance. At 180 degrees out, time runs at the same speed but backwards relative to where you are at...but is, of course, normal for you when you are there. Remembering that the fabric of space is curved (in a circle in this example), light that travels through it is also curved. So, if we looked far enough into the distance, we could see a point where time is running more slowly, relative to where we are at now. The farther away, the more slowly it runs. It would explain why distant galaxies are so red-shifted and appear to be moving away from us faster and faster with increased distance from our point of observation, here in this galaxy. Slower time means less energy released per given amount of time...but since light travels at a constant, C, the only way to account for the lower energy released over time is to red-shift it...lower frequencies of electromagnetic raditation (light) have less energy. So anything with a slower relative time is going to have its light emissions red-shifted. Conclusion = galaxies are not moving away from us as fast as we think they are. I have some other theories as to how this would explain qasars, black-holes, and a closed-loop universe...but I'll save that for another time. :wink:
Oh...one more thing. As you might now see, traveling 360 degrees around the circle, regardless of speed (as long as it is constant), means arriving back at the starting point at the same time that you left. Of course, unless you could travel faster than light, you'd be an antique yourself by the time you got there. :open_mouth: