Mathematical equations, physics buffs.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Scott

So, are the people spruiking Climate Change here from the future to try and help us save the planet, or are those opposed to the idea of it here to try and save us from giving control of the world to a crazy few?

OR

The people from the future are here to prevent the second dark age where mankind would be devolved into tree hugging parasites by debunking the poisonous manifest of the Church of Carbon Tax and the latter day ecomentalists.

[TZENU]

Double post

[TZENU]

Originally Posted by flappist

Just because we think something is impossible and can demonstrate totally unassailable proof to support our position does not make it true.

All it means is that we cannot understand how it could be true.

This has two possible outcomes.

1) It is not true.
2) It is true but we do not understand it (yet).

A closed mind will never discover anything new........

Quantum Physics?

[Iggypoppin']

Good point flappist, i should keep an open mind.

[XC_Lizzard]

Originally Posted by In Focus

If you're starship is travelling at the speed of light, what happens when you turn on the headlights?

The space-bunnies start imitating statues.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by flappist

There are 5 forces that control aviating; thrust, drag, lift, weight and casa.....

Ha ha classic!

Why do people have so much trouble with this??? Is a plane that is already rolling down a runway under its own steam i.e.: propulsion by means of pulling air past the craft through the use of propellers or jet or pushing against air by means of rockets, not already on a tread mill that is moving backwards relative to the aircraft moving forward??? The wheels are only in place so that this part can happen, they do not aid in propulsion by any means whatsoever as there is friction yes, but definitely no traction. What magical power is holding onto the ankles of the plane as the air speed increases via the propulsion independent to the conveyer belt (or runway for that matter) regardless of how fast the conveyer belt is travelling in the opposite direction?

Originally Posted by ford man xf

Apparently you can see the moon from the great wall of China

Don't you mean you can see "the great wall of China" from the moon? I can see a great wall from China across the street now and I am not on the moon either!

Ok here is mine, we did this in school. What happens when ice melts into the water that is suspending it, does it rise, fall or remain the same? With global warming upon us, the experts have been saying for years that if the polar cap melts then sea levels will rise.

And you can forget about what came first, the chicken or the egg? A quick google and it seems that they actually have a scientific answer!
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wor...-1225891801130

Bud Bud.

[Scott]

Scotch on the rocks really would be on rocks?

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

.
However, time is a wierd thing. You can, in theory, travel in such a way that you will age very little and others will age faster. Can anyone explain why? I already know, who else does?

Time slows down with high speed travel, RELATIVE to where you left, and if you come back to there.
The Astronauts to the moon aged about 3 seconds less [or something] by the time they returned to earth, relative to the earth, but not in their spacecraft.
If you could travel in a spacecraft fast enough, you could travel for say 20 years, spacecraft time, return to earth, and be 200 years in earths future.
Can't be reversed though.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Rodp

?!?! The general consensus of whom?

Look at it two ways;

If a time travel machine existed - how could it travel back into a time where it didn't exist?

If a time travel machine can travel back into time where it didn't exist - then a time travel machine now exists.

If you read the post by my sufficiently smarter half, you could only go back in time to the point where the time machine was first created.

So for arguments sake, if a time machine was invented today, in ten years time, we could only come back to today, not yesterday...

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Ha ha classic!
Don't you mean you can see "the great wall of China" from the moon? I can see a great wall from China across the street now and I am not on the moon either!

Correct. I was being cheeky to the post I quoted :-)

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

And you can forget about what came first, the chicken or the egg? A quick google and it seems that they actually have a scientific answer!
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wor...-1225891801130

Bud Bud.

What if the very first chicken came from a created egg.
It's a poorly written aritcle as well.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

If you read the post by my sufficiently smarter half, you could only go back in time to the point where the time machine was first created.

Can't seem to find that post - but if it's the post where it talks about general consensus, I'm still waiting for an answer to who participated in this general consensus?

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Can't seem to find that post - but if it's the post where it talks about general consensus, I'm still waiting for an answer to who participated in this general consensus?

Nah, the one under that - GT69...

As far as general consensus goes - Dr. Karl talks about it in some of his various rants...I'm going second hand...so I'll say 'apparently'...and hopefully that should clear things up...

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

So for arguments sake, if a time machine was invented today, in ten years time, we could only come back to today, not yesterday...

Does that mean that if you left the future and travelled back 10 years to today whilst wearing new clothes, you'd land here nude? What if you were only 8 years old??

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Scott

Does that mean that if you left the future and travelled back 10 years to today whilst wearing new clothes, you'd land here nude? What if you were only 8 years old??

I submit that Dr Karl never enter a time machine.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Scott

Does that mean that if you left the future and travelled back 10 years to today whilst wearing new clothes, you'd land here nude? What if you were only 8 years old??

Oh dear, I don't knowwww!

My assumption (and only my assumption) is that you wouldn't be able to go back further than you've existed...

As for clothes - I'm not an expert on clothes, I guess it may depend on whether the fibre was new technology or not??

Steve's been giving his interpretation for the last 20 minutes...I'm a tad confused...keeps muttering something about playing 'red alert'...but I don't get that either...

Originally Posted by Rodp

I submit that Dr Karl never enter a time machine.

You mean he's not allowed in a time machine??

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

You mean he's not allowed in a time machine??

Not this year

[My32Doors]

Originally Posted by onetonfun

I can see the moon

I can still see the moon!

[GreenR]

Originally Posted by Scott

Does that mean that if you left the future and travelled back 10 years to today whilst wearing new clothes, you'd land here nude?

Well Arnie did.

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by xtremerus

Time slows down with high speed travel, RELATIVE to where you left, and if you come back to there.
The Astronauts to the moon aged about 3 seconds less [or something] by the time they returned to earth, relative to the earth, but not in their spacecraft.
If you could travel in a spacecraft fast enough, you could travel for say 20 years, spacecraft time, return to earth, and be 200 years in earths future.
Can't be reversed though.

Look. Look. We have a winner!
Seriously though, what you've said is true. I am unsure when but some scientific team set two atomic clocks to the exact time and placed one in their research lab and the other in a jet plane that looped the globe once. Upon return, the atomic clock in the plane had gained several seconds. Someone check this? It's very second hand info. It gives an insight into what happens time-wise when you travel at certain speeds.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by plarazza

Well Arnie did.

Because in the movie, only living tissue could travel time - explain the metal dude if you please?

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by Scott

Because in the movie, only living tissue could travel time - explain the metal dude if you please?

It's a movie!

Lol

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

You mean he's not allowed in a time machine??

Apart from his poor wife, could you think of another human being that would want to see Dr Karl naked?

I respect his knowledge and his excitement for science but I draw the line at his naked body.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Scott

Because in the movie, only living tissue could travel time - explain the metal dude if you please?

It was wrapped in quasi living tissue.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Apart from his poor wife, could you think of another human being that would want to see Dr Karl naked?

I respect his knowledge and his excitement for science but I draw the line at his naked body.

Fair call!

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

Look. Look. We have a winner!
Seriously though, what you've said is true. I am unsure when but some scientific team set two atomic clocks to the exact time and placed one in their research lab and the other in a jet plane that looped the globe once. Upon return, the atomic clock in the plane had gained several seconds. Someone check this? It's very second hand info. It gives an insight into what happens time-wise when you travel at certain speeds.

I believe that the GPS satellites orbiting the globe have to have their clocks sped up every 24hrs as they run ever so slightly (fractions of a second) slower that clocks on earth. Doesn't sound like a lot but enough to everyones cars out buy as much as a few Kays daily. The mass of the earth and its gravity stretches time according to Einstein and as such time runs slower in its presence, as such the satellites that orbit the earth.

[NC1183]

Originally Posted by PRODIGAL SON

Thats an easy one, much better then this time travel/aircraft take off thing thats happening..



5

[flappist]

Originally Posted by NC1183

Thats an easy one, much better then this time travel/aircraft take off thing thats happening..



5

5 what? Elephants?

5cm would be a better answer

Or 50mm or whatever inches....

[gtfpv]

all this has me thinking , asking questions about time and trying to answer how it can be changed. ( hypothetical versus linear) would be like trying to guess how to steer a car when you dont know what a circle is .
the one question that must be answered before all else if we are vever to become different in understanding , is why do we exist? or how do we exist? many questions can come from that question. but if you cant add 1+2, then you cant solve algebra .

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by flappist

You have the wrong idea.
Aircraft do not accellerate due to power being applies to the wheels, the accellerate because they push against the air.

I prefer to think the forward motion as being much like the reason for lift.
The propellor causes a decrease in pressure in front of the aeroplane....but no big deal

Originally Posted by flappist

Grab a pushbike and hold it on a moving walkway. From outside the walkway grab the frame and start rolling it forward. If the walkway speeds up what happens?
The pushbike wheels spin faster, that is all.......

I think that example demonstrates it very well indeed, and if the you applied the brakes on the bike, then you'd might have trouble holding on to the bike and/or need to apply a much greater force to be able to drag it along, just as the aeroplane might need a bit more thrust if its going to be able to move if its tyres were locked up causing friction against the ground.

Of course its going to be marginally harder for the plane to take off on the conveyor belt because the force of rolling friction is basically going to at least double if the wheel speed doubles.