ozleicester Posted 25 September 2011 Posted 25 September 2011 And if your wondering where the nearest 'other' version of you is it is 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 28 meters. Or 1 followed by 10 billion billion billion zeroes It was that bastard that went through the speed camera then!
Trav Le Bleu Posted 25 September 2011 Posted 25 September 2011 You're assuming an infinite universe Jonno - which some doubt. It's hard to believe, but the universe could well be finite... which of course begs the question, what's outside? I always remember a backplate from an issue of 2000AD where astronauts are celebrating reaching "the edge of the universe" and the scene was expanded out so that you could see that our universe was being observed in a petri dish by alien scientists. Personally, for what it's worth, I feel that what we have is an infinite universe with a finite amount of matter in it.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 25 September 2011 Posted 25 September 2011 what happens if you stand on the line of a time zone and cross over? wont you arrive a hour before you left? I'm sure there is a simple answer without using a 100 figure equation. So what would happen if you stood 5m from the north or south pole and ran in circles around it?
coale39 Posted 25 September 2011 Posted 25 September 2011 So what would happen if you stood 5m from the north or south pole and ran in circles around it? You would probably fall over, dizzy (not through time travel though, although that does cause dizziness)
ozleicester Posted 25 September 2011 Posted 25 September 2011 You would probably fall over, dizzy (not through time travel though, although that does cause dizziness) 6 pints... peanuts... towel, all sorted
jonno24 Posted 25 September 2011 Posted 25 September 2011 You're assuming an infinite universe Jonno - which some doubt. It's hard to believe, but the universe could well be finite... which of course begs the question, what's outside? I always remember a backplate from an issue of 2000AD where astronauts are celebrating reaching "the edge of the universe" and the scene was expanded out so that you could see that our universe was being observed in a petri dish by alien scientists. Personally, for what it's worth, I feel that what we have is an infinite universe with a finite amount of matter in it. we are only talking about this universe tho which i do believe is finate but at the edges of our known universe there are immense gravitational pulls that many theorise may be other universes Kind of like a floaty cheerio shaped universes that sometimes collide with each other and create a new universe ie : the big bang
jonno24 Posted 25 September 2011 Posted 25 September 2011 is there and end to infinity? No thats why its called infinity
leicsmac Posted 25 September 2011 Posted 25 September 2011 You're assuming an infinite universe Jonno - which some doubt. It's hard to believe, but the universe could well be finite... which of course begs the question, what's outside? I always remember a backplate from an issue of 2000AD where astronauts are celebrating reaching "the edge of the universe" and the scene was expanded out so that you could see that our universe was being observed in a petri dish by alien scientists. Personally, for what it's worth, I feel that what we have is an infinite universe with a finite amount of matter in it. The visible Universe is very much finite - based on light coming back to us, the furthest visible object (the CMBR) is about 13.6 billion light years away (though this is subject to other conditions, all gets a bit complicated). However...it has been shown that just after the Big Bang, the speed of expansion of the Universe was faster than light. This means that the light and objects represented in that expansion will never reach us. For an analogy, it's like being on the roof of a moving train, going past an object next to the railway line and trying to run back towards it - the train is going faster in one direction than you can run in the other so as long as this is the case you'll never get to the object. Same principle with the visible and other parts of the universe. Therefore, there could well be a vast Universe outside what we can actually see - the Universe may actually be infinite in size - but the visible Universe, the part that we can see through various electromagnetic radiation - is finite.
Rincewind Posted 26 September 2011 Posted 26 September 2011 Even if we travel that far it will not be there when we get there. Think I'll stick with this planet.
leicsmac Posted 26 September 2011 Posted 26 September 2011 Even if we travel that far it will not be there when we get there. Think I'll stick with this planet. Exactly. That's why people giving distances to really faraway objects is mostly BS - you're measuring the distance to an object that is in constant motion away from us, sometimes at near light speed. So of course the distance to the object is going to change in the time it takes the light from the object to get to us. Fvcked up, isn't it?
Saxondale Posted 26 September 2011 Posted 26 September 2011 So what would happen if you stood 5m from the north or south pole and ran in circles around it? Fall over in the snow and get frost bite as well as mind boggle.
jonno24 Posted 27 September 2011 Posted 27 September 2011 what happens if you stand on the line of a time zone and cross over? wont you arrive a hour before you left? I'm sure there is a simple answer without using a 100 figure equation. There is = Nothing will happen You can actually do this if you go to the greenwich observatory and time doesnt go all wibbly wobbly if you do it. Time is something that we humans have used to put a structure to our lives and tbh time is a load of bs Like if you go somewhere on an aeroplane and for some reason you arive an hour earlier when you took off. You didnt ofcourse because Cosmic time is the same wherever you go in the universe its just that we attach laws to something that we dont understand in order for us to understand it. Altho if you spend an amount of time in space you age slower than if you were on Earth.
Libertine Posted 27 September 2011 Posted 27 September 2011 There is = Nothing will happen You can actually do this if you go to the greenwich observatory and time doesnt go all wibbly wobbly if you do it. Time is something that we humans have used to put a structure to our lives and tbh time is a load of bs Like if you go somewhere on an aeroplane and for some reason you arive an hour earlier when you took off. You didnt ofcourse because Cosmic time is the same wherever you go in the universe its just that we attach laws to something that we dont understand in order for us to understand it. Altho if you spend an amount of time in space you age slower than if you were on Earth.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 27 September 2011 Posted 27 September 2011 There is = Nothing will happen You can actually do this if you go to the greenwich observatory and time doesnt go all wibbly wobbly if you do it. Time is something that we humans have used to put a structure to our lives and tbh time is a load of bs Like if you go somewhere on an aeroplane and for some reason you arive an hour earlier when you took off. You didnt ofcourse because Cosmic time is the same wherever you go in the universe its just that we attach laws to something that we dont understand in order for us to understand it. Altho if you spend an amount of time in space you age slower than if you were on Earth. I like to think of cars and planes (or even bikes and horses if you like) as time machines. For instance: if you were to go to London unassisted, you'd do well to achieve it in 2-3 days, but get in a car and you're there in 2 hours or less if you're lucky. Therefore you've "kind of" travelled in time 48+ hours backwards in the future. Admittedly, it's a future that will now never exist, but such are the perils of time travel.
Hollism94 Posted 27 September 2011 Posted 27 September 2011 Could be wrong but I think they timed the neutrino going between Geneva and Rome? Something like that. And I can't help but wonder if they didn't consider, or more likely miscalculated, the curvature of the Earth. I'm sure this is me being too obvious but I think it's far more likely that some silly mistake like that happened than Neutrinos actually went faster than the speed of light. Or even that our current best guess of how fast Lightspeed really is is just innacurate. Another reason I doubt this to be true, is that when they exceeded lightspeed on South Park, an alien spaceship came down and welcomed them. I've not seen any aliens recently...
Leicester Lass Posted 27 September 2011 Posted 27 September 2011 Could be wrong but I think they timed the neutrino going between Geneva and Rome? Something like that. And I can't help but wonder if they didn't consider, or more likely miscalculated, the curvature of the Earth. I'm sure this is me being too obvious but I think it's far more likely that some silly mistake like that happened than Neutrinos actually went faster than the speed of light. Or even that our current best guess of how fast Lightspeed really is is just innacurate. Another reason I doubt this to be true, is that when they exceeded lightspeed on South Park, an alien spaceship came down and welcomed them. I've not seen any aliens recently... You are joking, right? These are the best Physicists in the world, do you really think they wouldn't consider something like that?! Also, since the paper has been published countless Physicists have looked through it to try and find any mistakes, yet nothing has come to light yet. For anyone interested, the paper they published is here: http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf
jonno24 Posted 27 September 2011 Posted 27 September 2011 I like to think of cars and planes (or even bikes and horses if you like) as time machines. For instance: if you were to go to London unassisted, you'd do well to achieve it in 2-3 days, but get in a car and you're there in 2 hours or less if you're lucky. Therefore you've "kind of" travelled in time 48+ hours backwards in the future. Admittedly, it's a future that will now never exist, but such are the perils of time travel. I love it when people say 'if i could go back in time and change one thing so my life would be better' i simply nod and agree fully knowing that it is a paradox. And at this moment in time the physics we know means that if i was to turn a Time Machine on now i wouldnt be able to go back to yesterday as time travel wasn't available yesterday. There is a professor in america who claims that he is close to creating a Time Machine not for humans ofcourse but with Protons. And he has stated that he will know if he is succesful before he starts the experiment. Man i LOVE physics
Libertine Posted 27 September 2011 Posted 27 September 2011 Er Thanks Bit of a derpy reaction I suppose but I enjoy your posts and wish more people realised things like that.
jonno24 Posted 27 September 2011 Posted 27 September 2011 Bit of a derpy reaction I suppose but I enjoy your posts and wish more people realised things like that. I think alot of 'Thinking outside the box' is needed when we talk about these subjects if we try to solve things by essentially handcuffing ourselves with our human laws we will get no-where. Plus my own studying is involving alot of theories about space that are not widely talked about. My own favourite is that the Singularity was caused by two universes colliding at certain points and creating what we call the Singularity. There are others that are talked about by Michio Kaku but he links Sci-Fi with theoretical Physics which i suppose is linking it to a form that most people could understand but is at the same time damaging the effect that these Theoretical Physics could have on applied physics.
Hollism94 Posted 28 September 2011 Posted 28 September 2011 You are joking, right? These are the best Physicists in the world, do you really think they wouldn't consider something like that?! Also, since the paper has been published countless Physicists have looked through it to try and find any mistakes, yet nothing has come to light yet. For anyone interested, the paper they published is here: http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf I know, I know. But I couldn't help but wonder. I bet these guys are looking for a massively complex reason they went wrong, and it's possible that the real error came from something much simpler than expected. That's all I was trying to say.
Rincewind Posted 28 September 2011 Posted 28 September 2011 Scientists like to get things wrong cos it means the can keep searching for better solutions
jonno24 Posted 28 September 2011 Posted 28 September 2011 Scientists like to get things wrong cos it means the can keep searching for better solutions No scientist 'Likes' getting things wrong but if you are a decent scientist you appreciate that your solution may be the best 'guess' so far.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.