But the mass increase wouldn't be there, becuase the space the matter occupies would change relative to it's speed, altering the mass's energy potenial to just what e=mc^2 says it should be. There is no time, no age, no limits to space. Just relative movement in space.
I haven't figured out if the black holes are gobbling things up. Or if we are slowing down and turning into dark matter. Or, if black holes turn quantum particles into dark matter by stopping them from vibrating. Probably all three.
From the flaming the Astronomer gave me, he didn't even want to CONSIDER that these invariences, in fact, may vary. Which I would define as a closed mind living off ego trips, not discovery.
Have you heard of relativity? Your slowing down with the light, so to you, time never seems to change pace. Nor would the consistancy of the speed of light untill you look at it over a long enough distance (hard to do when your so small). The spacial distance you move through does change though, and there in lies the paradox.
There is no age to the universe. It was always here. God could've pushed some dimesions together and made the universe we know. But that doesn't mean it happened 6,000 or 16,000,000,000 years ago. All it means is that it is there. Why does it have to have an age. What a stupid paradigm.
The reason Astronomers don't want to accept this is becuase it would change the nature of every cosmological theory they have. They've invested large amounts of time in old theories, why should they learn new ones? It's all about ego for them.
I had the opposite problem with mine. It got dropped when the drive tray was open, and the tray slammed into the spindle motor inside. The motor binds now and won't turn.
I asked around to see if I could get a new motor, nobody but sony makes 'em. And sony won't sell me one (proprietary tech blah blah), but they'll fix my PS2 for a flat $120, no matter what is wrong with it.
What a gip that I have to pay $120 to replace a $30 part.
Actually, Goku was trying to stop Cell from blowing up the earth after he went into Palestinian mode. Goku didn't kill Cell, Cell killed Goku, then Gohan killed Cell.
I've been reading The Elegant Universe. In it, it says that Einstein started thinking of time as a seperate dimension. As he started trying to figure out how gravity worked, he came to the conclusion that space and time are the same dimension. Time is actually the perception of warped space. The warping is due to gravity being exerted by physical objects, like the sun. So in a sense, time doesn't really exist, it's just in your head.
The lack of a way to measure something does not mean it does not exist.
I know. But my point was, time is an arbitrary concept. It has different values depending on your motion through space relative to whatever you want to measure time from. So therefore, the universe has no age. It just always was, and always will be. Unlocking the secrets of dark matter will show that the universe recycles space and motion, there is no time.
>Time is a human concept, there is no >time/space. So you're saying that if humans did not exist, there would be no time?
No, I'm saying that time is a way humans measure motion through the universe. It is not constant however, and makes a lousy yardstick. Einstein says that photons move through space but not time, Which is why I think he was wrong to conclude that time must be a separate dimension.
It's called the cosmological principle. There is no preferred centre of the universe. The Big Bang happened everywhere in the universe, not at one point in the universe. Think of the "raisin bread" model of the universe.
Right, space occupies different distances depending how fast you move through it...special relativity.
From our point of view, your statment makes sense. However, the raisins have no idea that they are actually moving through the bread, from they're point of view everything else is moving away from them, and they are still. They have no way to tell that everything around them is moving in one direction, away from a singular point, (think spheres expanding, not planer motion).
>..light moves slower.. Proof, please. Light always moves at the same speed.
Lets say some bubbles in a fishtank rise at a constant rate. The fish observe that the bubbles go the same rate no matter how fast they swim toward or away from them. The bubbles appear to slow down and speed up, but the fish realize this is a doppler effect, and is due to their motion, not the bubbles motion.
Now take the fishtank and chuck it out of the window of a 100 story building. The fish would still draw the same conclusion about the bubbles even though they, and the bubbles, are both in motion. They are just moving in a way they can't detect, becuase they can ONLY measure their speed relative to that of the rise of the bubbles. It's the paradox of special relativity.
Nowhere in this model do particles lose spin over time. They're not like small tops in space, they have discrete, quantized spin.
Right, and from our point of view, that spin is static. But since we MOVE at such discreet distances, we cannot gauge this decay, becuase the speed at which we move and the rate of decay, are relative.
The universe is not expanding into space, it is space expanding. There's a huge difference there
Right, if space is expanding, then all the particles in it would move relative to the rate of expansion. Even though they can move about in space, the space itself is changing, so the velocity available to relative movement is changed depending how much quantum momentum you have used up.
Thanks for the links (anon-coward). And I hope you can see now, why I think that the universe cannot have an "age". I could be wrong, but it's still has merit to consider before casting it away for what we think we already know.
Sure, sure, since you're so much smarter than every cosmologist in the world who says that the universe has a finite age.
They laughed at Gallileo when he said an orange and a cannon ball would fall at the same rate. Besides I said "I think this" not "I know this". I am entitled to my own observations. I was trying to engage you on the subject, not start a flame war...elitist.
Time is not measured by how particles move relative to each other. If everything is stationary time continues to march on.
Huh? If our galaxy and all the matter in it stopped moving, so would time. We would have no way to measure it, at least that is what relativity states. The photons we rely on for reference would not be moving, neither would we. Relativity is the same theory they use to come up with the age of the universe model you espouse, it's not wrong per-se, just incomplete. Time is a human concept, there is no time/space. Time is an effect of gravity and space interracting, and is wildly subjective. It changes depending on were you are in the universe.
Also, you're assuming the universe has a preferred centre. It doesn't.
What's the big bang then? They gauge the current estimate of the universe's age by it's rate of expansion from a single point. I make other assumtions, but not on this point.
Also, if "energetic particles leave the center of the universe and travel out", how does this mesh with "...the particles that make [the universe] up DO NOT move relative to each other..."? Please reconcile this.
As the particle moves away from the center, it moves slower. Thus, the particles relative movement is slower at the edges than in the center. I'm basically saying that in our layer of the expanding explosion known as the universe, light moves slower than it does closer to the center. Thus time seems to move faster.
Also, how do particles lose quantum spin? Can you explain this to me, and correlate it with the Standard Model that has been hammered out through years of extensive observations, calculations, and theories and show absolutely no support for this hypothesis?
What standard model are you talking about? One doesn't exist. Super String theory seeks to find out how sub-atomic particles exist without mass. They could be tiny knots were several dimesions meet. When 1 or more of these dimensions become unentangled, the particle ceases to interact in 3 dimensions. It is not quantum anymore, not in several places at once.
I think you should leave the thinking up to people who actually can. Don't pretend to know something when you so clearly do not.
I didn't 'think' this up. Read 'The Elegant Universe' by Brian Greene (NYT bestseller!). He is one of leading physicists of our time. Super string theory upsets assumtions made in relativity, which is why it is unpopular with the old egg-heads who have invested their lives into an incomplete observation. Einstein had no idea that sub-atomic particles existed (like quarks). So he had to make up shit to fill the holes in his theories. He even admitted relativity wasn't a complete explaination.
You're right, we don't understand gravity and time well enough. However, you understand it even less (to the point, one might add, where you don't understand it at all), so you're the least qualified to say anything even remotely resembling intelligent about it.
Seems your definition of intelligence precludes reading books, and comes from TV. I've cited my sources, you've cited none. See if you can pull your ego and your common sense apart and get back to me with rational logic.
They also removed control-panel and linuxconfig. So if you don't know how to edit the dozen or so files it takes to get your DHCP client running, your fucked. The telnet made sense though...telnet is insecure for WAN servers.
Perhaps the author intends to mine the database for answers to his questions in the post.
You don't need to read all the EULA's either. Just write a script(PERL comes to mind) that sifts through all the EULA's for text phrases, and dump the results into an appropriate format. Then the results can be put into graphs and the like for easy comparison.
This is an awsome idea. And would make pretty good ammo for first ammendment arguments against EULA's, and how they take away user/citizen freedoms.
Hmmm...I think the current universe models are wrong. I don't believe the universe ever had a beginning 'time' which would give it an age value.
We don't understand gravity/time in relation to each other well enough, to label the universe within a paradigm we can understand, such as age.
I believe time accelerates the closer you get toward the center of the universe, and gets slower as you move away from the center.
I say this becuase time is measured by how particles move relative to eachother. If those particles accelerated/deccelerated relative to eachother, then time would never appear to change from the particles perspective. However, if you could determine the particles distance/velocity degridation from the center of the universe, then you would be able to tell the particles true age.
But, the universe itself has no age, since the particles that make it up DO NOT move relative to each other over a given distance.
Energetic particles leave the center of the universe and travel out. Over distance they lose momentum, and their unique quantum spin. The particle then becomes 'Dark', it cannot directly interact with the quantum universe anymore. But since it does occupy mass, it now begins to accrete back to the center of the universe to start the process all over again.
This whole process in analogous to phase shifting in electric currents. Each cycle reaches an almost infinite value before it repeats.
...The strongest win. Whether really 'right' or not. I'm just glad the American version of 'right' seems to be purvying the world. Just imagine if Osama's version of 'right' was the strong one. I'd sure hate to have to pray to a rock (the Kaba) five times a day.
The world isn't a fair place, and none of us get out of here alive.
Maybe you don't understand what DBZ is trying to accomplish...animated soap opera.
Have you ever watched a soap like 'young and the restless' or 'guiding light'? I had to endure summer vacations watching that drivel as a kid. Somehow though, occasionaly, I'd find myself interested in the show. Only it would take forever for the plot to advance in soaps. They'll have the same conversation for a week sometimes. That and some of the plots are silly/corney. Deamon Possesed Housewives, Cloned Housewives, Alien Abducted Housewives...who could sit and watch that?
Anyway, DBZ is a lot like that. It is a developing story, not a planned one. If you don't have patience, don't watch it.
Dude, seriously...were you under a rock or something?!
I used to watch Robotech, Voltron, Galaxy Rangers, and G-Force every afternoon in the early 80's, no cable either. That was all anime. I'd never even heard of Gundam, until I saw a commercial for those suit models a couple months ago. I still don't know the difference between Manga and Anime?
In fact, Galaxy Rangers is the first cartoon I can remember that used Computer Animation in with the drawings, and that was like '84.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah that picture thing...whew! Took me by surprise.
But the mass increase wouldn't be there, becuase the space the matter occupies would change relative to it's speed, altering the mass's energy potenial to just what e=mc^2 says it should be. There is no time, no age, no limits to space. Just relative movement in space.
I haven't figured out if the black holes are gobbling things up. Or if we are slowing down and turning into dark matter. Or, if black holes turn quantum particles into dark matter by stopping them from vibrating. Probably all three.
From the flaming the Astronomer gave me, he didn't even want to CONSIDER that these invariences, in fact, may vary. Which I would define as a closed mind living off ego trips, not discovery.
There is no age to the universe. It was always here. God could've pushed some dimesions together and made the universe we know. But that doesn't mean it happened 6,000 or 16,000,000,000 years ago. All it means is that it is there. Why does it have to have an age. What a stupid paradigm.
The reason Astronomers don't want to accept this is becuase it would change the nature of every cosmological theory they have. They've invested large amounts of time in old theories, why should they learn new ones? It's all about ego for them.
I built one almost like it. but I didn't use a kit. Just some Bass wood stock/dowels, glue, large paper clips (trigger, release), and hemp cord.
Shoots quarters/nickels 30 ft. w/1 lbs. counter weight. Needs more weight so I can shoot heavy split shots though.
I asked around to see if I could get a new motor, nobody but sony makes 'em. And sony won't sell me one (proprietary tech blah blah), but they'll fix my PS2 for a flat $120, no matter what is wrong with it.
What a gip that I have to pay $120 to replace a $30 part.
Built a EMP device and put it in the trash can in the middle of the quad. Set for lunch time. Watch the fun!
Be sure to record results with pen a paper for extra credit!
Seems the hardware would be a little too fragile to handle supersonic flight very well.
Actually, Goku was trying to stop Cell from blowing up the earth after he went into Palestinian mode. Goku didn't kill Cell, Cell killed Goku, then Gohan killed Cell.
"I don't see the problem. When the reporters come, I'll just destroy them!"
Haven't gotten to the M-Theory section yet.
Sorry to be a picky bitch, but I couldn't help it. I'm listening to Animals right now (yes I bought the frickin CD...bad comsumer, BAD!)!
GO DOGS GO!
I know. But my point was, time is an arbitrary concept. It has different values depending on your motion through space relative to whatever you want to measure time from. So therefore, the universe has no age. It just always was, and always will be. Unlocking the secrets of dark matter will show that the universe recycles space and motion, there is no time.
>Time is a human concept, there is no
>time/space.
So you're saying that if humans did not exist, there would be no time?
No, I'm saying that time is a way humans measure motion through the universe. It is not constant however, and makes a lousy yardstick. Einstein says that photons move through space but not time, Which is why I think he was wrong to conclude that time must be a separate dimension.
It's called the cosmological principle. There is no preferred centre of the universe. The Big Bang happened everywhere in the universe, not at one point in the universe. Think of the "raisin bread" model of the universe.
Right, space occupies different distances depending how fast you move through it...special relativity.
From our point of view, your statment makes sense. However, the raisins have no idea that they are actually moving through the bread, from they're point of view everything else is moving away from them, and they are still. They have no way to tell that everything around them is moving in one direction, away from a singular point, (think spheres expanding, not planer motion).
>..light moves slower..
Proof, please. Light always moves at the same speed.
Lets say some bubbles in a fishtank rise at a constant rate. The fish observe that the bubbles go the same rate no matter how fast they swim toward or away from them. The bubbles appear to slow down and speed up, but the fish realize this is a doppler effect, and is due to their motion, not the bubbles motion.
Now take the fishtank and chuck it out of the window of a 100 story building. The fish would still draw the same conclusion about the bubbles even though they, and the bubbles, are both in motion. They are just moving in a way they can't detect, becuase they can ONLY measure their speed relative to that of the rise of the bubbles. It's the paradox of special relativity.
Nowhere in this model do particles lose spin over time. They're not like small tops in space, they have discrete, quantized spin.
Right, and from our point of view, that spin is static. But since we MOVE at such discreet distances, we cannot gauge this decay, becuase the speed at which we move and the rate of decay, are relative.
The universe is not expanding into space, it is space expanding. There's a huge difference there
Right, if space is expanding, then all the particles in it would move relative to the rate of expansion. Even though they can move about in space, the space itself is changing, so the velocity available to relative movement is changed depending how much quantum momentum you have used up.
Thanks for the links (anon-coward). And I hope you can see now, why I think that the universe cannot have an "age". I could be wrong, but it's still has merit to consider before casting it away for what we think we already know.
Sure, sure, since you're so much smarter than every cosmologist in the world who says that the universe has a finite age.
They laughed at Gallileo when he said an orange and a cannon ball would fall at the same rate. Besides I said "I think this" not "I know this". I am entitled to my own observations. I was trying to engage you on the subject, not start a flame war...elitist.
Time is not measured by how particles move relative to each other. If everything is stationary time continues to march on.
Huh? If our galaxy and all the matter in it stopped moving, so would time. We would have no way to measure it, at least that is what relativity states. The photons we rely on for reference would not be moving, neither would we. Relativity is the same theory they use to come up with the age of the universe model you espouse, it's not wrong per-se, just incomplete. Time is a human concept, there is no time/space. Time is an effect of gravity and space interracting, and is wildly subjective. It changes depending on were you are in the universe.
Also, you're assuming the universe has a preferred centre. It doesn't.
What's the big bang then? They gauge the current estimate of the universe's age by it's rate of expansion from a single point. I make other assumtions, but not on this point.
Also, if "energetic particles leave the center of the universe and travel out", how does this mesh with "...the particles that make [the universe] up DO NOT move relative to each other..."? Please reconcile this.
As the particle moves away from the center, it moves slower. Thus, the particles relative movement is slower at the edges than in the center. I'm basically saying that in our layer of the expanding explosion known as the universe, light moves slower than it does closer to the center. Thus time seems to move faster.
Also, how do particles lose quantum spin? Can you explain this to me, and correlate it with the Standard Model that has been hammered out through years of extensive observations, calculations, and theories and show absolutely no support for this hypothesis?
What standard model are you talking about? One doesn't exist. Super String theory seeks to find out how sub-atomic particles exist without mass. They could be tiny knots were several dimesions meet. When 1 or more of these dimensions become unentangled, the particle ceases to interact in 3 dimensions. It is not quantum anymore, not in several places at once.
I think you should leave the thinking up to people who actually can. Don't pretend to know something when you so clearly do not.
I didn't 'think' this up. Read 'The Elegant Universe' by Brian Greene (NYT bestseller!). He is one of leading physicists of our time. Super string theory upsets assumtions made in relativity, which is why it is unpopular with the old egg-heads who have invested their lives into an incomplete observation. Einstein had no idea that sub-atomic particles existed (like quarks). So he had to make up shit to fill the holes in his theories. He even admitted relativity wasn't a complete explaination.
You're right, we don't understand gravity and time well enough. However, you understand it even less (to the point, one might add, where you don't understand it at all), so you're the least qualified to say anything even remotely resembling intelligent about it.
Seems your definition of intelligence precludes reading books, and comes from TV. I've cited my sources, you've cited none. See if you can pull your ego and your common sense apart and get back to me with rational logic.
Guess it's time to try SuSe.
You don't need to read all the EULA's either. Just write a script(PERL comes to mind) that sifts through all the EULA's for text phrases, and dump the results into an appropriate format. Then the results can be put into graphs and the like for easy comparison.
This is an awsome idea. And would make pretty good ammo for first ammendment arguments against EULA's, and how they take away user/citizen freedoms.
We don't understand gravity/time in relation to each other well enough, to label the universe within a paradigm we can understand, such as age.
I believe time accelerates the closer you get toward the center of the universe, and gets slower as you move away from the center.
I say this becuase time is measured by how particles move relative to eachother. If those particles accelerated/deccelerated relative to eachother, then time would never appear to change from the particles perspective. However, if you could determine the particles distance/velocity degridation from the center of the universe, then you would be able to tell the particles true age.
But, the universe itself has no age, since the particles that make it up DO NOT move relative to each other over a given distance.
Energetic particles leave the center of the universe and travel out. Over distance they lose momentum, and their unique quantum spin. The particle then becomes 'Dark', it cannot directly interact with the quantum universe anymore. But since it does occupy mass, it now begins to accrete back to the center of the universe to start the process all over again.
This whole process in analogous to phase shifting in electric currents. Each cycle reaches an almost infinite value before it repeats.
You've got to be kidding right? Or is the FDS just making you lightheaded?
They have different clothes sure, but they have the same face, curly brown hair, and martial arts prowness. See what I mean?
Has anyone else noticed that Spike looks and acts just like Jubei from Ninja Scoll?
The world isn't a fair place, and none of us get out of here alive.
Have you ever watched a soap like 'young and the restless' or 'guiding light'? I had to endure summer vacations watching that drivel as a kid. Somehow though, occasionaly, I'd find myself interested in the show. Only it would take forever for the plot to advance in soaps. They'll have the same conversation for a week sometimes. That and some of the plots are silly/corney. Deamon Possesed Housewives, Cloned Housewives, Alien Abducted Housewives...who could sit and watch that?
Anyway, DBZ is a lot like that. It is a developing story, not a planned one. If you don't have patience, don't watch it.
ARE YOU CRAZY!
Dude, seriously...were you under a rock or something?!
I used to watch Robotech, Voltron, Galaxy Rangers, and G-Force every afternoon in the early 80's, no cable either. That was all anime. I'd never even heard of Gundam, until I saw a commercial for those suit models a couple months ago. I still don't know the difference between Manga and Anime?
In fact, Galaxy Rangers is the first cartoon I can remember that used Computer Animation in with the drawings, and that was like '84.
DBZ just fuckin' rocks!
Guy1: "Smoking marijuana makes you deaf."
Guy2: "What'd you say?"