tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.comments2023-11-02T20:51:29.334+09:00Universe Think TankAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-71680042480228891912010-07-20T00:01:09.576+09:002010-07-20T00:01:09.576+09:00Also, I hear people say "when matter gets clo...Also, I hear people say "when matter gets closer to light speed it's mass increases and requires more energy to accelerate it".<br /><br />Does this mean that mass is relative as well?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395234138830298412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-56115032318829573562010-07-15T17:54:14.888+09:002010-07-15T17:54:14.888+09:00Another way to look at it would be that Atheists D...Another way to look at it would be that Atheists DO believe in something. They believe there are no deities. So if you believe there are no deities, then you can't be Agnostic, because Agnostic is supposed to be a stance of not believing either way. It's about what you choose to believe or not believe.<br /><br />Personally, I think that if someone thinks it's fine to believe that deities do not exist, then they should also be able to think it's fine to believe the opposite. Both are in the same category of believing in something that isn't proven.<br /><br />That's why I consider myself Agnostic. But I guess you could call me an Agnostic that leans towards the possibility of the non-existence of deities. But I'll never treat that possibility as fact based on scientific faith. Yes, I think faith can exist in this opposite belief system.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395234138830298412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-31153020098115175392010-07-15T17:29:55.086+09:002010-07-15T17:29:55.086+09:00Thanks, Matthew.
So because of time dilation, the...Thanks, Matthew.<br /><br />So because of time dilation, they are both slowed down in relation to each other and perceive the speed as less than light speed. I see. But wouldn't that not really matter? Like, even if a space ship only perceives their own speed as less than light speed compared to Earth, wouldn't they still get to their destination faster since they are continuously accelerating?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395234138830298412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-63639463836848811632010-07-03T10:58:54.846+09:002010-07-03T10:58:54.846+09:00Yes, you would still be able to go faster than the...Yes, you would still be able to go faster than the spaceship next to you -- but the increase in speed with respect to that would be different than the increase in speed with respect to Earth or another fixed point.<br /><br />Also, the paradox you're talking about is the Twin Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox) -- from what I understand, it's the fact that the rocket-ship twin turns around and changes his inertial frame that causes him to return to Earth younger.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17687476567476715651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-91697265850069997142010-07-03T01:18:33.391+09:002010-07-03T01:18:33.391+09:00He did have some good analogies about truth and ho...He did have some good analogies about truth and how it may be vague or encompass a range of degrees. I found that analogy of the definition of 'health and wellness' to be quite helpful. <br /><br />But he poorly applied most of his analogies, apples are oranges, style. Truth and morality are closely related and in many ways linked, but they are not the same.<br /><br />Also, it appeared to me that most of his appeals for his thesis "science can do morality" were "everybody knows.' Such as "everybody knows woman wearing 'bag's is bad" Really, apparently not everyone does know that or agree with that. (Not even some of the women, either, given the account of the gentlemen at the end who spoke from personal experience with Muslims)<br /><br />Or what about his argument that 'bad people' can't be trusted for any facts? As if Ted Bundy or the Taliban couldn't teach people 2+2=4. <br /><br />Good points, mixed in with several logical fallacies and assumptions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-55436645318511702692010-06-30T23:11:00.569+09:002010-06-30T23:11:00.569+09:00Thanks for the comments.
So yeah, I know about ho...Thanks for the comments.<br /><br />So yeah, I know about how all that works with time dilation and all. But my question is, even if you are going way too fast in relation to Earth, wouldn't you still be able to go faster than the spaceship beside you? Because in that reference, your speed is zero. Would the reference frame with Earth really even mean anything any more?<br /><br />Also, another thing I wanna throw into the conversation...<br /><br />There is a paradox I read about with time dilation. Both observers (one at "rest" in relation to the other and one accelerating in relation to the other) see each other's time as slowing down. But only the accelerating observer's time is the one that actually does slow down. The explanation I read was because the acceleration is the difference between the two and that's why only the accelerating observer's time slows down. But I can't find anything that says "why" this is true. Do they know why only the accelerating observer's time would slow down?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395234138830298412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-39713650974103466292010-06-30T15:00:47.749+09:002010-06-30T15:00:47.749+09:00This goes a little bit into what Matthew said, but...This goes a little bit into what Matthew said, but as I've understood it, yeah, time runs slower and I suppose you could say we age slower the faster we are moving. <br /><br />Though I'm not sure if it's entirely correct, the analogy I've always thought of is, I suppose you could say, a little more down to earth (pun intended); I generally think of an vehicle that can fly faster than the earth spins. If it takes off and manages to circle all the way round the planet to it's starting point, then when it reaches that point, less time will have elapsed for the people in the ship than those who stayed back on earth in the same place, because literally they would have been lapped by those in the ship. In other words, the people who were traveling faster got there earlier, but since the destination was the same place they started and they were going so fast, literally less time went by for them, and they aged slower than those left behind. Mind you, they only aged a few hours slower than those left behind, which is miniscule compared to the length of a human life.<br /><br />I've heard of this concept used in some sci-fi flicks before where people take off to go into space at unreal speeds, and they say good bye to loved ones hop into their ship for only a few months or years but when they come back everyone they said good-bye to is now much much older and it's like "oh man it's been so long for us, we haven't seen you for ages, but you haven't changed hardly a bit, it was only a short time for you but for us it was years and years..."<br /><br />I've asked myself if there were any practical application for this, and while I suppose you could use it to fast forward into time and see the future farther than your normal life would naturally take you, couldn't think of much since you'd have to leave behind everything to make the trip. I guess you could buy some wine and then when you came back it would be well aged, without you having to wait so long, but that'd be a pretty silly way to use a scientific technological realization like this. Maybe something else will come to me later.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09625500175082418593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-61615741222896006282010-06-30T13:12:48.863+09:002010-06-30T13:12:48.863+09:00For more explanation (or maybe more confusion) of ...For more explanation (or maybe more confusion) of your original question (different things travelling relative to one another), consider this:<br /><br />2 spaceships take off from earth in opposite directions going .75 times the speed of light. Since they're going in opposite directions, you might think they're going 1.5 times the speed of light relative to one another.<br /><br />However, that's not allowed because of the speed of light limit. So what happens?<br /><br />Both ships will travel .75 times the speed of light relative to Earth. However, relative to one another, time and space will dilate so that they are only going something like .96 times the speed of light relative to each other.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17687476567476715651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-40425088616333100562010-06-30T12:57:22.361+09:002010-06-30T12:57:22.361+09:00"Or is it just impossible to go the speed of ..."Or is it just impossible to go the speed of light in relation to anything no matter how far away it is from you?"<br /><br />This. It's really messed up, but space and time start distorting once you approach the speed of light relative to something else. It's what Einstein's theory of relativity is all about, so look up that as a starting point.<br /><br />It's called 'time dilation' for info on it -- basically if you're traveling near the speed of light compared to Earth, time will actually run slower for you than it will for stuff on earth, to keep the speed of light constant (for you and earth.) They proved it at one point using supersonic jets and super-accurate clocks, and showed that clocks on the jets were a few milliseconds slower than the clocks on earth.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17687476567476715651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-8390060549444871862010-06-30T12:56:22.542+09:002010-06-30T12:56:22.542+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17687476567476715651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-34685909424230374922010-01-09T04:13:19.902+09:002010-01-09T04:13:19.902+09:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-66112144921640843882009-11-26T00:01:24.955+09:002009-11-26T00:01:24.955+09:00The math! The math!The math! The math!Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-14011826920551899172009-11-15T05:37:24.979+09:002009-11-15T05:37:24.979+09:00The implications of the determinism debate are end...The implications of the determinism debate are endless.<br /><br />Some feel that if the physical world is all there is, and every physical event is predetermined, then freewill is just an illusion (which you alluded to). <br /><br />If this is true, then freewill is not the only thing that is an illusion. Essentially the idea that you have preferences at all is an illusion. Your choosing cheese or not has nothing to do with preferences...It was an unavoidable physical necessity, determined most likely somewhere around the time of the big bang.<br /><br />To take it even further, the fact that I like some music better than other soon becomes meaningless. It is not that the music appeals to me, or that there is any kind of inherent value in the music (or making music for that matter). It is simply a function of the outworking of physical laws that I "prefer" some to others. <br /><br />Writ large, the logical conclusion would seem to mean that even the "I" I'm referring to really holds no meaning. If selfconscious intellegence is something that has evolved within humans and is completely causally determined, then even the mind itself (self-consciousness) is an illusion. The "mind" becomes reduced to a projection shown on a screen that no one is watching.<br /><br /> Taken to its logical conclusion, we cannot rightfully say "my mind," we can only say "my body."<br /><br /><br />Art, music, all of it looses much of its meaning. Emotions become reduced to biological functions. Even the emotions that move people to write beautiful music, angry music, whatever...has nothing to do with that person. Art and music become unalterable necessary physical events that are only dependent on a cosmic occurence millions of years ago.<br />In a sense, there is no creativity.<br /><br />Thus, in many ways it can be said that no one makes accomplishments. It has profound implications on what we are as people.christopher gleasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00408595621423353500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-48386790704033167672009-11-15T03:06:02.829+09:002009-11-15T03:06:02.829+09:00Doesn't this whole business of "observing...Doesn't this whole business of "observing quantum events changes them" only really come down to the fact that we bounce electrons off of things to be able to see them? Isn't it just common sense that throwing other particles at something would make it behave differently?<br /><br />If so, then wouldn't this be not really that big of a deal?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395234138830298412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-76748845545948839222009-11-15T01:03:50.387+09:002009-11-15T01:03:50.387+09:00AFAIK, The point is that on the quantum level, the...AFAIK, The point is that on the quantum level, the very act of observing something can affect it.<br /><br />In other words, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time until it is observed. Then it becomes one or the other. The act of observing changes the state of the observed thing.<br /><br />In the many universe theory, there would be a universe where the cat is alive and another where the cat is dead, but they would be the same until someone observes the cat.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04333846292635122546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-8391206053399154322009-11-14T14:06:47.145+09:002009-11-14T14:06:47.145+09:00I'm not exactly sure with any of these questio...I'm not exactly sure with any of these questions. Even after reading all kinds of stuff and watched video explaining the other "dimensions" I never understood them. Brian Greene talks about how the dimensions are all wrapped up but it never was ever clear to me WHY they were different dimensions.<br /><br />Also, don't know about why things can't go faster than light other than the fact that I remember hearing that it would take infinite energy to travel that fast. I have no idea why it's like that. Does anyone else?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395234138830298412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-56939636438973748982009-10-31T12:53:32.433+09:002009-10-31T12:53:32.433+09:00Agreed, Mike!Agreed, Mike!Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395234138830298412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-37368634075277281142009-10-26T23:30:36.811+09:002009-10-26T23:30:36.811+09:00I would just like to say that I'm glad you fou...I would just like to say that I'm glad you found a great link between your huge fascination with evolutionary biology and this blog. I agree with your theories about what intelligent life could be like. Bipedal and all.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-6448510068078426172009-10-13T18:04:10.585+09:002009-10-13T18:04:10.585+09:00I wonder if they can point the hubble at dark spot...I wonder if they can point the hubble at dark spots within the Ultra Deep Field and let it look for longer...Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395234138830298412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-59576588411839104062009-09-15T21:52:45.127+09:002009-09-15T21:52:45.127+09:00I tend to view both life and the persistence of me...I tend to view both life and the persistence of memes as essentially the same thing. Successful iterations of either are self-reinforcing patterns. I see life as a sort of physical property in the way that you describe consciousness, but then all physical properties are also descriptions of pattern so that's not particularly surprising. <br /><br />In the simplest terms, I see life (and consequently consciousness) as a sort of "software" process that is an effect of the "hardware"... although that may be simplified enough as to not really be saying anything without going further.<br /><br />I'll plan on expounding on this sort of thing later when I'm not at work.Hhhhhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646466488248975018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-51002221755828735262009-09-14T18:37:51.653+09:002009-09-14T18:37:51.653+09:00OK, I can almost see that but digestion involves a...OK, I can almost see that but digestion involves actual physical liquids and solidity is a state of atoms being closely compacted...these are things we can observe. Consciousness is not so easy.<br /><br />My personal definition of consciousness has always been something like...something similar to self-awareness. Perhaps synonymous with self-awareness...and that can exist due to our brain's different sections working together giving that effect to us.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-64679343706607403022009-09-14T18:32:30.949+09:002009-09-14T18:32:30.949+09:00I'm not saying it's a "thing" li...I'm not saying it's a "thing" like a cat or a tree. I'm saying it's a property like digestion or solidity.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04333846292635122546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-88653217703140051052009-09-14T01:35:36.799+09:002009-09-14T01:35:36.799+09:00If you say that consciousness isn't really a &...If you say that consciousness isn't really a "thing" then how can it considered in terms of being reduced or not? I am so lost on this whole consciousness thing. I feel like other people are kind of viewing their consciousness differently from how I view theirs...and mine.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07526908607051848179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-59770349782835814922009-09-11T01:57:30.997+09:002009-09-11T01:57:30.997+09:00We hardly understand what "time" might b...We hardly understand what "time" might be, and only understand it enough to venture the occasional wild guess about how it might be manipulated. Because of that, I've never understood how people could use our current understanding of time to say with certainty that the manipulation of time was possible or impossible.<br /><br />The same with black holes, you can say that anything at all happens when you enter one, because no one is going to be able to conduct an experiment that proves you wrong. <br /><br />I've not read too much on the subject, but my understanding is that although 2 black holes could interact and merge to create a wormhole between them, that would happen at random and probably be uselessly rare. I would think that for it to be useful at all, black holes/ wormholes would have to be created and manipulated, and then fed with enough energy to be maintained while the link was kept up. I'd be surprised if we were able to collect enough energy over the next 1000 years to begin to experiment with something like that... and it might turn out that there simply isn't enough energy in our solar system to power such a process even if it is possible.Hhhhhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646466488248975018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495309806221970937.post-88442021209670935852009-04-21T02:19:00.000+09:002009-04-21T02:19:00.000+09:00If anyone hasn't yet read any of Michio Kaku's boo...If anyone hasn't yet read any of Michio Kaku's books, I'd suggest they quickly take care of that... They are fascinating and written in a way that isn't overly technical, but without the text feeling like it's been dumbed-down. <br /><br />Reading Hyperspace in highschool was one of the major reasons I started reading about physics at all.Hhhhhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646466488248975018noreply@blogger.com