Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [Wired] Astronomers Discover Millions of New Black Holes and a Rare Type of Galaxy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Wired] Astronomers Discover Millions of New Black Holes and a Rare Type of Galaxy - Page 7

post #61 of 149
Fuell you're just trying to justify the comments you made initially, not that you are not trying to disprove dilation effect. No need to pretend that 60 seconds is 60 seconds universally, when in fact you supposedly aren't trying to disprove dilation effect.

Just own it, it's the internet, nothing more.

60 seconds is not a universal 60 seconds, no matter how you want to spin it.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
INTEL ASUS XFX  SAMSUNG 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD/ST LG KUHLER WINDOWS 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG/SAMSUNG IBM MODEL M CORSAIR THERMALTAKE 
MouseMouse PadAudio
MS INTELLIMOUSE EXPLORER 3.0 REGULAR LARGE PAD ONBOARD but it USED TO BE A XONAR DG  
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
INTEL ASUS XFX  SAMSUNG 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD/ST LG KUHLER WINDOWS 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG/SAMSUNG IBM MODEL M CORSAIR THERMALTAKE 
MouseMouse PadAudio
MS INTELLIMOUSE EXPLORER 3.0 REGULAR LARGE PAD ONBOARD but it USED TO BE A XONAR DG  
  hide details  
Reply
post #62 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuell View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner340 View Post

OK, OK, I know where Fuell is going with this. No, this hypothetical ship doesn't make the same trip twice. When travelling at a significant fraction of c, there will be at least two different measurements (from the different reference frames) of the speed and travel time. However, there was indeed only ONE trip made, and all measurements are correct.

Bingo! Someone gets what I'm saying.

Ok, I get what line of thinking you're having. Yes there is only one trip made. The actual time that trip took is entirely up to the observer. One way to not get trapped into thinking that there is one true time, is to not think about the universe as having a single time. Time is different throughout the universe, depending on the reference frame doing the measuring. The trip took as long as it took, but the time it took was different to any frame of reference. The ship will arrive at the same point for everyone, but during that single trip different amount of time will have gone by for all of the different reference frames. Everybody sees 60 seconds the same when they're referencing other things in their own frame, but 60 seconds for someone on Earth won't be the same as 60 seconds for somebody closely orbiting a black hole, if each had a perfectly accurate watch on, and they met up at a later time, the watch for the person on Earth will have ticked more and have a later time/date, yet they both can meet up in one place and one time to compare watches.

Another way to think about it. If I were to jump into a black hole, you would see me start to fall in, but it would appear at a certain point that I almost stop falling. To me I continue falling and don't slow down. Both people are correct. Things get darker as they enter a black hole however, which is why you don't see things sitting frozen forever on an event horizon.

EDIT: if you'd like to know more: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html
Edited by lordikon - 8/30/12 at 12:16am
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #63 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordikon View Post

The time it took to travel the full distance was quite literally different for any observer that was moving at a relatively different speed. Let's say 10 different observers in different galaxies measured the time that the trip took. They would all get different results, and they would all be correct. Time is relative, not fixed like you're describing. 60 seconds is only 60 seconds in certain places, so there is no way to say that there is one true time to describe how long the trip took,you can only say that for each observer there is one time that the trip took.

Hmm... This is why I dislike relativity as a topic of discussion, the idea of trying to argue, one way or the other, over time as it pertains to relativity rather than being "fixed" brings in too many problems. Perhaps it would be easier to say that if all time were universal and "fixed" that the perceived time could be different while actual time is true. Bah! The words I'm using have a meaning relative to how I'm trying to frame my explanation which is messing everything up now. It feels like when you repeat a word over and over and it no longer sounds right.

It's getting all muddy because of "Time". How could I put it... Time being relative and not fixed... that itself when you think of it can blow your mind. As the frame of reference greatly changes the result based on relativity. I can't even put into words anymore what I'm trying to say.. Bah! Not time... existence itself, as a whole, as the frame of reference, everything on the same page, same time, same relativity and such, there is one single time. Only when the "relativity" of "time" to an "observer" is thrown in where it gets all hard to explain why he measures a different, correct to him time, while still "technically" being wrong. Does that get it across better? Man, this is why I don't post in these threads, its too hard to explain anything...

Or... Like the 10 frames listed above. Lets say, for arguments sake, that only one of those could be correct, which would you choose and why? I basically say its more accurate to go with the frame of reference measured by the object itself. This has the least amount of variables and highest likely chance of being measured correctly without any external influence from outside forces such as "relativity" and all the issues it brings into the fold. Though I'm being vastly over simplistic, I hope this finally helps get the rough point across. Well, it will have to, because its 4:11am and I'm tired, and this thread is making me a sad panda right now.

Edit>
Quote:
Originally Posted by GanjaSMK View Post

Fuell you're just trying to justify the comments you made initially, not that you are not trying to disprove dilation effect. No need to pretend that 60 seconds is 60 seconds universally, when in fact you supposedly aren't trying to disprove dilation effect.
Just own it, it's the internet, nothing more.
60 seconds is not a universal 60 seconds, no matter how you want to spin it.

I'm trying to justify comments I made initially. Yes, thats what explaining yourself is all about. I'll own what I said, it obviously was explained in not the best ways, but in no way am I backtracking or changing what I said or mean, simply trying to get the actual meaning of what I said across through conversation, rather than it be taken wrong and have people put the wrong words in my mouth because I said something funny or didn't elaborate...
Edited by Fuell - 8/30/12 at 12:13am
M06
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX6300 Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 XFX 7950 - 3GB G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 2133 CL9 @ 1733... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
WD Blue 500GB WD Black 1.5TB Crucial M4 128GB (OS) LG ODD 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Deepcool Lucifer v2 Win7 Ultimate 64 bit Acer X223w (1050) LG 22EN33 (1080) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sharkoon Tactix OCZ ModXstream Pro 700w Modular Corsair 300R CM Storm Xornet 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Steelseries Qck+ DOTA2 Edition Edifier e1100+  Sennheiser HD215 Plantronics Gamecom 307 
  hide details  
Reply
M06
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX6300 Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 XFX 7950 - 3GB G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 2133 CL9 @ 1733... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
WD Blue 500GB WD Black 1.5TB Crucial M4 128GB (OS) LG ODD 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Deepcool Lucifer v2 Win7 Ultimate 64 bit Acer X223w (1050) LG 22EN33 (1080) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sharkoon Tactix OCZ ModXstream Pro 700w Modular Corsair 300R CM Storm Xornet 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Steelseries Qck+ DOTA2 Edition Edifier e1100+  Sennheiser HD215 Plantronics Gamecom 307 
  hide details  
Reply
post #64 of 149
According to this here,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html

If a ship travels from Earth to the nearest star at 0.999999c
then (correct me if I'm wrong) approximately 4.25 years will pass on Earth and only 2-3 days will pass on the ship.

Ignoring acceleration and deceleration, the ship only needs enough fuel for 2-3 days of travel at 0.999999c ??

People on the ship can travel around the galaxy and return to Earth and little time has passed.
But, on Earth, much much more time has passed.

Here is the part that perplexes me.....
At 0.999999c, the universe (as viewed from inside the ship) would appear to shrink ??
I cant imagine how a ship could travel from one star to another star in a few days time, unless the distance between stars actually decreased (as viewed from inside the ship).
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II X4 750k Asus F2A85-V MSI GTX 750 Ti Team 2x2GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Kingston SSD V300 120GB Zalman CNPS5X performa + Arctic MX-4 Windows 7 64-bit Asus VW222 22" LCD 1680x1050 
PowerCase
FSP 460W Foxconn TSAA-426 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G3258 @ 4.4 GHz ~1.38Vcore ~1.9Vccin Ri... MSI H81M-P33 Asus GTX 750 Ti OC + Thermalright HR-11 backsid... Transcend 2x2GB @ 1400MHz (5-7-5-18) ~1.62V 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Intel SSD 330 240GB ZM CNPS5X (not performa) + 120mm fan (push) Windows 7 64bit Acer GD245HQ - 1920x1080 120Hz - Nvidia 3D Vision 
PowerCaseAudio
FSP 500W Enermax Phoenix Neo + 220mm Globefan (side) Creative Titanium HD + Beyer DT 880 - 250 ohm 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II X4 750k Asus F2A85-V MSI GTX 750 Ti Team 2x2GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Kingston SSD V300 120GB Zalman CNPS5X performa + Arctic MX-4 Windows 7 64-bit Asus VW222 22" LCD 1680x1050 
PowerCase
FSP 460W Foxconn TSAA-426 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G3258 @ 4.4 GHz ~1.38Vcore ~1.9Vccin Ri... MSI H81M-P33 Asus GTX 750 Ti OC + Thermalright HR-11 backsid... Transcend 2x2GB @ 1400MHz (5-7-5-18) ~1.62V 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Intel SSD 330 240GB ZM CNPS5X (not performa) + 120mm fan (push) Windows 7 64bit Acer GD245HQ - 1920x1080 120Hz - Nvidia 3D Vision 
PowerCaseAudio
FSP 500W Enermax Phoenix Neo + 220mm Globefan (side) Creative Titanium HD + Beyer DT 880 - 250 ohm 
  hide details  
Reply
post #65 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partol View Post

According to this here,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html

If a ship travels from Earth to the nearest star at 0.999999c
then (correct me if I'm wrong) approximately 4.25 years will pass on Earth and only 2-3 days will pass on the ship.

Ignoring acceleration and deceleration, the ship only needs enough fuel for 2-3 days of travel at 0.999999c ??

People on the ship can travel around the galaxy and return to Earth and little time has passed.
But, on Earth, much much more time has passed.

Here is the part that perplexes me.....
At 0.999999c, the universe (as viewed from inside the ship) would appear to shrink ??
I cant imagine how a ship could travel from one star to another star in a few days time, unless the distance between stars actually decreased (as viewed from inside the ship).

Think of it like this, light takes one year to travel a light Earth year, from the perspective of our frame of reference. If you were on a ship traveling almost the speed of light you would go MUCH further than a light year in one of your years. The distance of a light year as we've defined it will always take one Earth year for light to travel, but if you're the light itself it takes no time at all to travel that distance from your own perspective.

So, yes, it would only need enough fuel for a few days of travel, even though Earth will have observed that it took years for the ship to get there.
Edited by lordikon - 8/30/12 at 12:36am
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #66 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuell View Post

It's getting all muddy because of "Time". How could I put it... Time being relative and not fixed... that itself when you think of it can blow your mind. As the frame of reference greatly changes the result based on relativity
This may sound crazy, but I've concluded that time is a "man-made" concept.
time = distance / speed

For example, if you use a sun dial to measure time, you are actually measuring Earth's movement.
If you use a clock to measure time, you are actually measuring movement of the clock hands.

Time dilation is actually just a slow down or speed up in movement (or a change in distance or both), which (I think?) affects everything in the "reference frame". Mathematically, it's very convenient to use time. Therefore, people use it.

Time dilation (in a way) is similiar to what happens when substances are cooled (or heated), the substances move slower (or faster). If we cool or freeze a human, his body should "run" slower, and he should age slower too. He could be unfrozen many years later, and would age very little.

If you still have doubts about "time" dilation, then just remember this.
speed of light in a vacuum is constant. relativity is just a "consequence" of this fact.

If speed of light was unlimited, then, maybe, fast moving objects would obey classical physics.
Edited by Partol - 8/30/12 at 1:24am
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II X4 750k Asus F2A85-V MSI GTX 750 Ti Team 2x2GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Kingston SSD V300 120GB Zalman CNPS5X performa + Arctic MX-4 Windows 7 64-bit Asus VW222 22" LCD 1680x1050 
PowerCase
FSP 460W Foxconn TSAA-426 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G3258 @ 4.4 GHz ~1.38Vcore ~1.9Vccin Ri... MSI H81M-P33 Asus GTX 750 Ti OC + Thermalright HR-11 backsid... Transcend 2x2GB @ 1400MHz (5-7-5-18) ~1.62V 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Intel SSD 330 240GB ZM CNPS5X (not performa) + 120mm fan (push) Windows 7 64bit Acer GD245HQ - 1920x1080 120Hz - Nvidia 3D Vision 
PowerCaseAudio
FSP 500W Enermax Phoenix Neo + 220mm Globefan (side) Creative Titanium HD + Beyer DT 880 - 250 ohm 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II X4 750k Asus F2A85-V MSI GTX 750 Ti Team 2x2GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Kingston SSD V300 120GB Zalman CNPS5X performa + Arctic MX-4 Windows 7 64-bit Asus VW222 22" LCD 1680x1050 
PowerCase
FSP 460W Foxconn TSAA-426 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G3258 @ 4.4 GHz ~1.38Vcore ~1.9Vccin Ri... MSI H81M-P33 Asus GTX 750 Ti OC + Thermalright HR-11 backsid... Transcend 2x2GB @ 1400MHz (5-7-5-18) ~1.62V 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Intel SSD 330 240GB ZM CNPS5X (not performa) + 120mm fan (push) Windows 7 64bit Acer GD245HQ - 1920x1080 120Hz - Nvidia 3D Vision 
PowerCaseAudio
FSP 500W Enermax Phoenix Neo + 220mm Globefan (side) Creative Titanium HD + Beyer DT 880 - 250 ohm 
  hide details  
Reply
post #67 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abs.exe View Post

It would take you 10 billions years to get there if you could go at the speed of light, which results into this math :
Knowing that the speed of light is 1,079,252,848.8 kilometres per hour.
10,000,000,000 * 1,079,252,848.8 = 107 925 248 480 000 000 000 000 000 000 Kilometers from earth.
*Note : Speed of light is relative since we are now aware that some denser elements accelerate/slowdown the light.

And how can astronomers see so far into the space, when with the same kind of technology we can't do some simple things these days? It's funny
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
[intel] i5 2500K @ 4.5 GHz [Asus] P8Z68-V [GB] GTX 970 G1 [Kingston] HyperX Fury 1600MHz - 16GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
[Crucial] MX 100 Windows 10 64 bit [BenQ] XL2411Z [EVGA] SuperNOVA 750W G2 
Case
[Corsair] 330R 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
[intel] i5 2500K @ 4.5 GHz [Asus] P8Z68-V [GB] GTX 970 G1 [Kingston] HyperX Fury 1600MHz - 16GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
[Crucial] MX 100 Windows 10 64 bit [BenQ] XL2411Z [EVGA] SuperNOVA 750W G2 
Case
[Corsair] 330R 
  hide details  
Reply
post #68 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordikon View Post

Think of it like this, light takes one year to travel a light Earth year, from the perspective of our frame of reference. If you were on a ship traveling almost the speed of light you would go MUCH further than a light year in one of your years. The distance of a light year as we've defined it will always take one Earth year for light to travel, but if you're the light itself it takes no time at all to travel that distance from your own perspective.
So, yes, it would only need enough fuel for a few days of travel, even though Earth will have observed that it took years for the ship to get there.
My understanding is ... speed of light (in a vacuum) is always constant, as measured on Earth or from within a fast moving ship.
Am I wrong?

If I ride a photon of light, I could travel across the universe in zero time. right?

Thus,
Either I am traveling faster than c, or the universe appears (to me) to be a small dot?

Edit: Sorry, not a dot. The universe would appear to be a flat plane which is perpendicular to the direction of travel.
At least, that's what I think.
Edited by Partol - 8/30/12 at 1:18pm
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II X4 750k Asus F2A85-V MSI GTX 750 Ti Team 2x2GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Kingston SSD V300 120GB Zalman CNPS5X performa + Arctic MX-4 Windows 7 64-bit Asus VW222 22" LCD 1680x1050 
PowerCase
FSP 460W Foxconn TSAA-426 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G3258 @ 4.4 GHz ~1.38Vcore ~1.9Vccin Ri... MSI H81M-P33 Asus GTX 750 Ti OC + Thermalright HR-11 backsid... Transcend 2x2GB @ 1400MHz (5-7-5-18) ~1.62V 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Intel SSD 330 240GB ZM CNPS5X (not performa) + 120mm fan (push) Windows 7 64bit Acer GD245HQ - 1920x1080 120Hz - Nvidia 3D Vision 
PowerCaseAudio
FSP 500W Enermax Phoenix Neo + 220mm Globefan (side) Creative Titanium HD + Beyer DT 880 - 250 ohm 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II X4 750k Asus F2A85-V MSI GTX 750 Ti Team 2x2GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Kingston SSD V300 120GB Zalman CNPS5X performa + Arctic MX-4 Windows 7 64-bit Asus VW222 22" LCD 1680x1050 
PowerCase
FSP 460W Foxconn TSAA-426 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G3258 @ 4.4 GHz ~1.38Vcore ~1.9Vccin Ri... MSI H81M-P33 Asus GTX 750 Ti OC + Thermalright HR-11 backsid... Transcend 2x2GB @ 1400MHz (5-7-5-18) ~1.62V 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Intel SSD 330 240GB ZM CNPS5X (not performa) + 120mm fan (push) Windows 7 64bit Acer GD245HQ - 1920x1080 120Hz - Nvidia 3D Vision 
PowerCaseAudio
FSP 500W Enermax Phoenix Neo + 220mm Globefan (side) Creative Titanium HD + Beyer DT 880 - 250 ohm 
  hide details  
Reply
post #69 of 149
IMO this stuff is still too "theoretical", things could be going on that we don't know about yet. Heck, apparently we still aren't sure that matter is made up of particles.

I want to be able to hop on a ship and go from point A to point B with an accurate speedometer and an accurate clock and have the clock show that I arrived in less time than the amount of time it takes to travel that distance, by minutes, not nanoseconds or some such insignificant amount of time. Right now the margins of error are just too big for a simpleton like me.

It's kind of ironic that in order for this stuff to work, you have to think of the universe as something that revolves around the Earth again, just like they did so long ago.
According to time dilation our clocks should all moving at significantly different rates depending on the season (the solar system moves at 560,000 mph and the Earth will be moving at 66,660 mph either with or against that. Unless the solar system is going "up"), and even the time of day (depending on whether you're moving with or against the Earth's orbit) but since we're all still moving at the same rate relative to each other there's no way to tell that anything is changing.
Again, leading to skepticism.

You'd think they could get some more significant results if they left a probe sitting in space in stationary position relative to the Sun, then just check up on it's status once a year.

(Just had a brain wave, why don't we stick robots and cameras on comets that run around the solar system and stop by for a visit every few decades?)
post #70 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuell View Post

Or... Like the 10 frames listed above. Lets say, for arguments sake, that only one of those could be correct, which would you choose and why?
I would choose all of them because all of them are correct. Period. Any physicist you ask will give you the exact same answer, it's really not something up to opinion. You can't say "universal time" and then count it in "seconds", because before humans "seconds" didn't even exist. What most humans call "time" is entirely our invention, something we created based on the patterns we saw with sunrise and sunset, moonrise and moonset. Put it this way - if the sun and the moon didn't exist, humans would've instead used the time it took (just as an example) for an object to fall 10 meters and call that 1 second (or 1 whatever) since we wouldn't have had the sun or moon as references.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuell View Post

I basically say its more accurate to go with the frame of reference measured by the object itself. This has the least amount of variables and highest likely chance of being measured correctly without any external influence from outside forces such as "relativity" and all the issues it brings into the fold. Though I'm being vastly over simplistic, I hope this finally helps get the rough point across. Well, it will have to, because its 4:11am and I'm tired, and this thread is making me a sad panda right now.
We ARE already going with the frame of reference by the object itself. Us, here, together on earth are all moving at the same velocity through space. As far as 99.9% humans are concerned our clocks run at identical speeds because during our daily lives we just don't move fast enough for general relativity to have a measurable effect.

General relativity and it's impact on time are almost irrelevant to our lives, that's why a fairly accurate "set time" has been agreed on by everyone using atomic clocks.

But what you're not understanding is that we (as a whole) are already experiencing time dilation, the planet is moving at thousands of km/h, the solar system is moving at tens of thousands of km/h, the Milky Way has estimated to be moving at 1.2 million miles per hour (relative to other local groups). Say for example, the galaxy Andromeda was moving at 600 million miles per hour relative to us, and a guy named Jim grabbed a clock and teleported to Andromedia. If Jim pointed his ultra-powered telescope at earth (lets just forget about the distance between the galaxies and the time light takes to travel), he would see our clocks moving in slow motion compared to his own clock because our galaxies are moving at different speeds.

But that doesn't matter to us, atleast as far as everyone on Earth is concerned.
A clock running in our galaxy would run at a different rate compared to a clock in another galaxy (assuming said galaxy was moving faster or slower relative to us).

So if each person on earth was moving around at different percentages of the speed of light, THEN what you're asking will hold some water. It will become a severe problem to say who is measuring the correct time due to everyone having clocks running at different speeds, they will all be experiencing different values of time dilation. You would probably say "well the only guy who is standing still will be measuring the "correct" time." Wrong, he's only standing still relative to EARTH.

So lets remove the earth. 10 people were left in empty space and each of them were zooming around at a different percentage of C (0%, 10%, all the way to 90%) then the only person who was standing "still" (the 0% guy) would be screaming "I'm not moving, all your clocks are running weirdly slow! My clock is the most accurate!" and then another guy would reply "Wrong, I am standing still and YOU are moving! YOUR clock is running weirdly slow, mine is more accurate!" and it would go on and on, nobody would be right because they all see each other moving and they all see each others' clocks running slower than their own.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [Wired] Astronomers Discover Millions of New Black Holes and a Rare Type of Galaxy