|
Post by Bigboy on Apr 30, 2005 18:40:12 GMT -5
I'd love to get on with you - and for the majority of the time these boards are harmonius.
Unfortunately every now and again someone comes along who forgets that this is a community, and not a platform for thier ego.
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Apr 30, 2005 19:30:19 GMT -5
Wanna repeat again, just in case, no insult or harm meant by my hostile post...
|
|
|
Post by greedy on May 1, 2005 15:54:21 GMT -5
you mean u all havn't been worshiping my ego well well THEN I'M TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on May 1, 2005 22:18:31 GMT -5
THEN I'M TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME Finally, I was waiting all my life for this moment....;D Just Kidding This site wouldn't be the same without you greedy....
|
|
|
Post by Phil on May 2, 2005 4:36:45 GMT -5
This site wouldn't be the same without you greedy.... too right. it would be alot better ;D
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on May 2, 2005 10:27:02 GMT -5
Just further commendation for BB and Mad: despite the wholly inappropriate (and personally offensive) tone displayed by mright (whose handle is, hilariously and ironically, wrong*), you both steered clear of arguing the person and stayed on topic.
Well done.
*I don't always have the patience the two of you do, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by gretchen on May 2, 2005 11:44:59 GMT -5
funny... the ones who really believe that they are mr right... and quite often horribly horribly wrong. text book example as witnessed here, and by my brand new ex boyfriend.
so not mr right. really believed he was. sad.
|
|
|
Post by greedy on May 2, 2005 12:05:07 GMT -5
too right. it would be alot better ;D awww phil but with out me how would we get people to cut open and sorry to hear about your BF gretchen you can come over to my house and talk about it if you want
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on May 2, 2005 12:45:39 GMT -5
Could you quit it Greedy? Your open love of guns and viscera is getting seriously disturbing...
|
|
|
Post by mright on May 2, 2005 13:02:31 GMT -5
funny... the ones who really believe that they are mr right... and quite often horribly horribly wrong. text book example as witnessed here, and by my brand new ex boyfriend. so not mr right. really believed he was. sad. ya wat...?? wer was i wrong then missy??? boyfriend comment is a bit random!!! anyho.. for those of you who want an explaination on that light thing i said and also wanna understand abit about time travelling (since it is central to dd)thought id write a note on it (kos i know ur man madriko wanted my ideas more ordered so here goes,... and by the way yea madricko i am insulted a little) ok so firstly... u need this lemma or result: c is a constant. that is light speed is the same for everyone, regardless of their speed etc.. eg if u cud shine some light out of a torch and measure it it wud b 299792458 metres per second. then after that u hopped into ur car and drove at 200 mph and shone ur torch itd still be the same speed! exactly! (this result can be proved(consider light as a wave etc) but for simplicity its easier if u accept this, and also ignore the speed change as light travels through differnt mediums) ok now with this result u can do so much. one handy concept thought in many colleges is the notion of a light box or light clock. (this is a THEORETICAL watch or time measurer) basically you trap a beam of light (or preferabley a single photon)between two mirrors so that it bounces up and down vertically. and now we keep track of time by counting the number times the light hits each mirror. or the rate at which the photon bounces records the time. get the picture??? now imagine that light or photon bouncing up and down... since the speed of light is a constant, the rate at which it bounces should also b a constant and so time should be a constant.... however (heres the kicker) if ur move this light box forward the light is no longer moving up and down vertically, its moves sideways... get the picture?? therefore the distance the light has to travel between bounces is bigger... therefore the rate of the bounces is decreased therefore time goes slower now that the box is moving forward!!!! same thing happens if u move the box any direction.(if ur interested u can calculate the change in the rate by using phytagourous' theorem a^2+b^2=d^2 where a is the distance between the mirrors and b is the distance moved forward in one bounce and d is the distance light has to travel for a bounce ) so now wat would happen if u moved ur light clock forward at the speed of light??? the light in the clock would NEVER bounce since it is traveling all of its speed in the forward direction and none in the up down direction. it cant just speed up!(same logic applies if u move the box any direction.) therefore the rate at which the light is bouncing in the box = 0 therefore no time passes if u travel at the speed of light therefore light is not in the 4th dimension, althought its "in" our other 3 perceivable dimensions. so now you all understand time travel in the forward direction! all u gotta do is get out of the 4th dimension ! thats the simplest way i can think of to explain time dilation , lights "age"and time a little travel ok i gotta get back to work.. sorry if it was long
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on May 2, 2005 18:58:31 GMT -5
See - you can play nice! (though don't be surprised if you get it in the neck for the 'missy' comment)
I've realised where my initial misunderstanding lay; Time does slow to 0 for an object moving at light speed - to an observer who is stationary relative to that moving object The crunch comes when you consider a second observer sitting on the object moving at light speed. From his frame of reference he may as well be stationary whilst observer 1 is moving at light speed - so from observer 2's point ov view, time seems to slow to zero for observer 1.
It's all to do with the frame of reference of the observer not the observed - so causality isn't broken (for the light) as I originally concluded.
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on May 2, 2005 22:08:42 GMT -5
1st.. Thanks PP, that was another compliment from you're behalf... I think i am getting better at this getting compliments thing...
2nd.. I am satisfied enough with the improvement from behalf of mright..... Eventhough you DID misspell certain elemental things like "Pythagorean theorem" and "a^2+b^2=C^2" but you did make a largely significant improvement, and I will not get on you're case anymore for a few careless spelling mistakes.... (sometimes you have to urge change into people throught the tough way)
|
|
|
Post by mr right on May 3, 2005 5:46:27 GMT -5
ok starting to lose respect for ya
1. Trying to correct stupid mistakes
2. being completely in the wrong. Pythagorean... as in something proved by Pythagoras. as he did do more math then just messing round with a triangle
3. a^2+b^2=C^2 is right too. try reading ur posts madridarkobefore sending maybe..
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on May 3, 2005 7:55:59 GMT -5
Mad - letters for variables are entirely interchangable. He could just as easily quoted the hypotenuse rule as "x2+y2=z2" so long as he defines the vairables (and he did).
In this case d was used instead of c to avoid confusion with the speed of light (c).
To clarify what mright is saying - Pythagoras' Theorum refers to a2+b2=c2, where as Pythagorean Theory refers to his whole body of work.
mright - you're going to have to forgive us some skepticism; on the one hand you've told us you've written a thesis on these subjects, and you have turned up relevent (mostly) info. But on the other hand you've made basic mistakes like misspelling scientific terms and mistaking velocity for speed. Assuming you wan't to stick around, it's going to take patience and time (on everyone's behalf) to trust you, and being flat out rude wont help that.
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on May 4, 2005 18:39:44 GMT -5
If I am correct, you did not say "Pythagorean" but "phytagourous'"....
BigBoy, you are right that it could be written with any combinations of variables, but the standard form is using a,b,c variables... I guess in that part I was the one that was perplexed by seeing it with different variables than what I am used to...
I admit that I was ignorant in the differentiation between "Pythagorean Theory" and "Pythagoras' Theorum" but that does not take away from the fact that he wrote "phytagourous' theorem"....
I am sorry that you are loosing respect for me because eventhough it might not be apperant, I still try to respect you. I do not doubt on the possibility that you might have written a thesis on this subject; therefore you surely have higher knowledge on this area than my poor stupid ignorant mind, but still, I did not find your (sorry for the term) arrogant entrance very pleasing.
I truly do hope that you decide to prolong your status here and I do not doubt that you will be a great significant contribution to this site, but as BB said: it will take time for us (or at least me) to fully withdraw my skeptic thoughts of you....
All Apologies...
|
|