Re: Did you know / Fact thread

[El Gunner]

not trying to come across as acting superior, just sharing my views.

again, never said i can explain the big bang or trying to disprove it.

But i'll leave your "fact" thread

[futbol]

The North star is about 680 light years away.

Fact 4: 1 light year is the distance that light can travel in 1 year which is: 9.46 trillion kilometers

Which means when you look at the North Star in the sky, the light you see is about 680 years old at every second.

Imagine that!

What you see in the sky at the very second is from 100 to thousands years old.

Which means the light that comes to you at the time you look in the sky, is from a reaction that happened at the same time when previous 30th generation of your family had existed! The light is just reaching to you now!

Fucking insane.

Insane is the fact that a human could reach the 680 light year away north star within his life span, despite the fact that light needs 680 years to reach it.

[Harmonica]

The North star is about 680 light years away.

Fact 4: 1 light year is the distance that light can travel in 1 year which is: 9.46 trillion kilometers

Which means when you look at the North Star in the sky, the light you see is about 680 years old at every second.

Imagine that!

What you see in the sky at the very second is from 100 to thousands years old.

Which means the light that comes to you at the time you look in the sky, is from a reaction that happened at the same time when previous 30th generation of your family had existed! The light is just reaching to you now!

Fucking insane.

Insane is the fact that a human could reach the 680 light year away north star within his life span, despite the fact that light needs 680 years to reach it.

What fact?

[futbol]

The North star is about 680 light years away.

Fact 4: 1 light year is the distance that light can travel in 1 year which is: 9.46 trillion kilometers

Which means when you look at the North Star in the sky, the light you see is about 680 years old at every second.

Imagine that!

What you see in the sky at the very second is from 100 to thousands years old.

Which means the light that comes to you at the time you look in the sky, is from a reaction that happened at the same time when previous 30th generation of your family had existed! The light is just reaching to you now!

Fucking insane.

Insane is the fact that a human could reach the 680 light year away north star within his life span, despite the fact that light needs 680 years to reach it.

What fact?

It's 680 lightyears only for a spectator on earth who is not moving. For a continiously accelerating spectator time and space becomes different. If you travelled with close to the speed of light for 5 years (from your point of view) and came back to earth, you would be 5 years older yet the people on earth would be already dead. This is what many somewhat physics interested people already know. What they don't realise is what it truly means.

If I look at a star on earth 680 light years away and send my brother with 99.99 % of the speed of light to that star, relative to his own time frame 680 earth years would have passed after only roughly 10 years on his space ship. In other words: "That star is 680 light years away" is an incorrect statement. There is no time, there is only time-space, therefore it should be rather 680 lightyears for the system 'earth-star'". For the system spaceship with close to speed of light-star it's not 680 lightyears, it's barely 10 years.

A power unit that could eternally accelerate with 9.81 m/s^2 (1g) would already be enough to reach the "end" of the Universe in a human's life span.

[Harmonica]

I don't think that's correct, it takes a foton 680 years to travel the distance, which means it would take the same amount of time from a human at the same speed. Human life span is about 80 years, so it would take 9 generations on a space ship to reach the place, at that speed. Which of course currently is impossible because it would need infinite amount of energy, or mass.

[futbol]

I don't think that's correct, it takes a foton 680 years to travel the distance, which means it would take the same amount of time from a human at the same speed. Human life span is about 80 years, so it would take 9 generations to reach the place, at that speed. Which of course currently is impossible because it would need infinite amount of energy, or mass.

It takes a photon 680 years relative to the reference system "earth", so a spectator on earth would have to wait 680 years for his light signal to travel 680 light years. For a reference system in motion, time (and space) is different relative to the earth reference system. If I'm on a spaceship close to the speed of light, 10 years in my own time (Eigenzeit) will equal 680 years on earth, so 680 light years measured on the reference system earth is reachable (in theory of course, because we don't have spaceships anywhere near the speed of light).

Are you familiar with reference systems in motion and special relativity?

[Harmonica]

I don't think that's correct, it takes a foton 680 years to travel the distance, which means it would take the same amount of time from a human at the same speed. Human life span is about 80 years, so it would take 9 generations to reach the place, at that speed. Which of course currently is impossible because it would need infinite amount of energy, or mass.

It takes a photon 680 years relative to the reference system "earth", so a spectator on earth would have to wait 680 years for his light signal to travel 680 light years. For a reference system in motion, time (and space) is different relative to the earth reference system. If I'm on a spaceship close to the speed of light, 10 years in my own time (Eigenzeit) will equal 680 years on earth, so 680 light years measured on the reference system earth is reachable (in theory of course, because we don't have spaceships anywhere near the speed of light).

Are you familiar with reference systems in motion and special relativity?

Last university physics courses I had on the subject were 15 years ago. It makes sense if the 680 years distance is measured from earth, somehow I remembered that the distance is measured from the light particle.

[elitedam]

Wouldn't the spaceship still travel 680 light-years to get from earth to the star?

[Unique]

a cheetah can go from 0-60 faster than a Lamborghini Murcielago.

[futbol]

Wouldn't the spaceship still travel 680 light-years to get from earth to the star?

For a spectator on earth, yes. For a spectator who is in motion (on the spaceship), length contraction plays a role, which will make the distance shorter.

It's a huge mindfuck, despite the concept of relativity being open to everyone and even topic in school.

[rincon]

Wouldn't the spaceship still travel 680 light-years to get from earth to the star?

Yes, it would. But Futbol is still partly right as far as I understand. Approaching the limit of the speed of limit from below will make time pass much more slowly as seen by the reference frame in earth. Inside your spaceship, you will age at the same rate as always, since your velocity relative to yourself is in fact 0. The thing is, at speed of light time is essentially "frozen", so approaching that limit you will also begin to approach this "timelessness" relative to earth.

What is a bit misleading about Futbol's post (not intentionally I think) is that it makes it seem that the spaceship didnt in fact travel 680 years (of earth). So elitedam's question is relevant if I understood it correctly.

To make an example if you flash a light the instant that the spaceship leaves, the light WILL win the race. And it will have taken 680 years for it to do so. The problem is that time doesnt really mean much to light as it is massless.

The key here is that this is a thought experiment, we would need infinite energy to accelerate a spaceship to this scenario, and the engineering to harness that infinite energy. So it is not possible for a human to complete this 680 light year trip in a lifetime.

[Unique]

Wouldn't the spaceship still travel 680 light-years to get from earth to the star?

For a spectator on earth, yes. For a spectator who is in motion (on the spaceship), length contraction plays a role, which will make the distance shorter.

It's a huge mindfuck, despite the concept of relativity being open to everyone and even topic in school.

how does it make the distance shorter. the distance between 2 objects is what it is. the speed you travel to get there only determines how long it takes.

[futbol]

Wouldn't the spaceship still travel 680 light-years to get from earth to the star?

For a spectator on earth, yes. For a spectator who is in motion (on the spaceship), length contraction plays a role, which will make the distance shorter.

It's a huge mindfuck, despite the concept of relativity being open to everyone and even topic in school.

how does it make the distance shorter. the distance between 2 objects is what it is. the speed you travel to get there only determines how long it takes.

I can't explain it to you if you don't understand time dilatation first. Are you aware that time is different for different reference systems? That time in a very fast moving spaceship would be slower compared to earth time? It's a bit like me sitting in a train. I have 0 velocity from my point of view, I'm not moving. From your point of view outside of the train I would be moving with the speed of the train. 2 different velocities, depending on the reference system. Similar to that, time is also different, depending on the reference system.

If you understand that first, it's only a little step to also understand why length is relative as well.

Imagine I am a spectator on earth. For me, Alpha Centauri, the next nearest star, is 4.3 light years away. Imagine I send a spaceship to that star with constant velocity v and clock the time starting from t_E = 0 (E stands for earth).

Now imagine you being in the spaceship (I am still on earth). For you, time will pass differently (remember time dilatation). Your time span t_S (S stands for spaceship) will be much shorter until you reach Alpha Centauri because time goes slower for moving reference points.

What does that imply?

Length = velocity * time.

s_E = v * t_E

s_S = v * t_S

Without confusing you any further with Lorentz factor (I can't write formulas here properly anyway), you can already see  that there are 2 different lengths, depending where you are looking from. Different times in different reference systems automatically implies this.

Or in your language: If you move too fast, your drick shrinks.

[Unique]

so are you saying a stopwatch would count down slower if it was in a a space ship that was moving fast.

[futbol]

so are you saying a stopwatch would count down slower if it was in a a space ship that was moving fast.

If you have 2 identical stop watches on earth clocking them exactly at the same time, then take one of them on a ride with a spaceship moving really really fast and then come back to earth and compare both clocks, the one which travelled on the spaceship would have went slower than the one which stayed on earth. For example the earth clock could show 20 hours passed by and the spaceship clock would still be at 13 hours.

This is not simply a theory by the way, it's proven and measured. The thing is, that we can't build anything to go fast enough to have really noticeable differences. You have that effect also when fyling on a plane with 900 km/h. We are talking about nanoseconds of differences though, so not noticeable, only measureable with atomic clocks.

In essence, it's time travel. If we could build spaceships flying with near speed of light, you could travel 1 year on a spaceship then come back to earth and everyone on earth would be 100 years older for example while you only aged 1 year (numbers are random and depending on the exact velocity).

[Unique]

so are you saying a stopwatch would count down slower if it was in a a space ship that was moving fast.

If you have 2 identical stop watches on earth clocking them exactly at the same time, then take one of them on a ride with a spaceship moving really really fast and then come back to earth and compare both clocks, the one which travelled on the spaceship would have went slower than the one which stayed on earth. For example the earth clock could show 20 hours passed by and the spaceship clock would still be at 13 hours.

This is not simply a theory by the way, it's proven and measured. The thing is, that we can't build anything to go fast enough to have really noticeable differences. You have that effect also when fyling on a plane with 900 km/h. We are talking about nanoseconds of differences though, so not noticeable, only measureable with atomic clocks.

In essence, it's time travel. If we could build spaceships flying with near speed of light, you could travel 1 year on a spaceship then come back to earth and everyone on earth would be 100 years older for example while you only aged 1 year (numbers are random and depending on the exact velocity).

but a stopwatch is just a mechanical device so what is it that makes it go slower because it is going fast.

[rincon]

so are you saying a stopwatch would count down slower if it was in a a space ship that was moving fast.

If you have 2 identical stop watches on earth clocking them exactly at the same time, then take one of them on a ride with a spaceship moving really really fast and then come back to earth and compare both clocks, the one which travelled on the spaceship would have went slower than the one which stayed on earth. For example the earth clock could show 20 hours passed by and the spaceship clock would still be at 13 hours.

This is not simply a theory by the way, it's proven and measured. The thing is, that we can't build anything to go fast enough to have really noticeable differences. You have that effect also when fyling on a plane with 900 km/h. We are talking about nanoseconds of differences though, so not noticeable, only measureable with atomic clocks.

In essence, it's time travel. If we could build spaceships flying with near speed of light, you could travel 1 year on a spaceship then come back to earth and everyone on earth would be 100 years older for example while you only aged 1 year (numbers are random and depending on the exact velocity).

but a stopwatch is just a mechanical device so what is it that makes it go slower because it is going fast.

The stopwatch is not going slower or faster. The stopwatch is functioning the same way. Locally, your velocity with respect to yourself is always 0, as such you experience time the same way no matter how fast go. The trick is that you (and your stop watch) traversed time differently than the earth did. So when you return, your progress through time no longer lines up, so your stop watches show different results and it seems like one of them went slower.

So its not that the watch mechanically changed to move slower (I think that's the bit that makes it sound like magic). It continued clicking the same way, it's that time itself passed differently. Or to be more correct, that you traversed through time at a different speed than the earth did, because in the end time is another dimension that we travel through.

[Unique]

this stuff is interesting. im gonna go watch some vids about this stuff.

[Warrior]

Surely a superior entity exists, whether or not it has emotions and it will judge you. I personally believe it is passive. Because you cannot create something out of nothing. So this big bang thing being the start of our universe... ok but the micro atoms that collided came from somewhere

But then where did the superior entity come from? It couldn't have been conceived, or created out of nothing too, right?

Yes that follows the logic. But where it comes from ? I have no serious answer, just more questions.

My worthless theory. Since you can't create things from empty space, i assume there was never "nothing" in the universe. So we must improve our understanding of how the time really works. Does the universe constantly regenerates or is time a endless loop and there is no instant zero ?

I don't like to think it's a god or whatever partial dude that rules the universe. Multiple intangible energies that can be influenced is closer to what i've experienced in my short life.

[Unique]

[elitedam]

Thanks for the explanation, guys.

But if I'm understanding this correctly, Nish's "fact" that the earth is 680 light-years from the star still stands for non-relativistic speeds, correct?

[Myesyats]

Surely a superior entity exists, whether or not it has emotions and it will judge you. I personally believe it is passive. Because you cannot create something out of nothing. So this big bang thing being the start of our universe... ok but the micro atoms that collided came from somewhere

But then where did the superior entity come from? It couldn't have been conceived, or created out of nothing too, right?

Yes that follows the logic. But where it comes from ? I have no serious answer, just more questions.

My worthless theory. Since you can't create things from empty space, i assume there was never "nothing" in the universe. So we must improve our understanding of how the time really works. Does the universe constantly regenerates or is time a endless loop and there is no instant zero ?

I don't like to think it's a god or whatever partial dude that rules the universe. Multiple intangible energies that can be influenced is closer to what i've experienced in my short life.

I think god is the least probable explanation of all. With gravity, something could actually be created out of nothing. That's possible in theory.

You could say that Earth seems to be perfectly carved for human life and therefore it must have been a creation of a superior entity like god. But that's far-fetched. There is an untold number of planets so for one to be suitable to humans is not that remarkable. And Hawking argues that intelligent life will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it.

His idea of multiple universes sounds quite accurate in the sea of all other theories. If you have multiple universes, one of them is bound to have similar laws of physics to ours and therefore in that universe something must have been created out of nothing. And there is no place for god anywhere in that scenario.

Saying simply "oh god did it" is just an easy way out. Its never that simple. God is just a side effect the human desire to have explanation and meaning to their lifes.

[El Gunner]

If you have multiple universes, one of them is bound to have similar laws of physics to ours and therefore in that universe something must have been created out of nothing. And there is no place for god anywhere in that scenario.

none of what you just said there makes sense

it's simply your reason vs another person's reason that says a God can exist in such a scenario - nothing is proven because nothing can be proven, a God nature doesn't function on that level

Saying simply "oh god did it" is just an easy way out. Its never that simple. God is just a side effect the human desire to have explanation and meaning to their lifes.

you say that with such blinded certainty. How can you ever prove a statement like that?

[Myesyats]

none of what you just said there makes sense

It is common for subatomic particles (protons and electrons) to seemingly appear out of nowhere, float around and then disappear to a completely different location. Given that the universe was once the size of less than an atom, its possible it behaved the same way and then you can do the math from here.

[Myesyats]

Saying simply "oh god did it" is just an easy way out. Its never that simple. God is just a side effect the human desire to have explanation and meaning to their lifes.

you say that with such blinded certainty. How can you ever prove a statement like that?

I cannot prove it and thats why I believe in science which you can measure and prove time and time again, even you if you burn all the science books they will return in the same form but if you erased god from memory it would return because thats how human mind works (it needs an explanation for what we can't comperehend or what we fear, as in absence of after-life) but in different form, surely not the same word-for-word.

[El Gunner]

^^purely hypothetical situation you just made up which would never happen. But let's run with that, why are you saying the concept of God would come back in a different form as that would be a problem - when words/language is just a human level medium that is abstract mind fragments attached to other abstract things, feelings and happenings in life to make sense of life. Surely the pure essence of a God nature in its finest state stays the same, doesn't matter what form it takes up?

so you think we've only developed a conceptual module for God because of fear, and not because we're self-conscious creatures who are just curious of where we come from and why we exist, let alone the possible truth that we are actually God's creation/a form of God expressing/experiencing life so such a intuition to feel a deep affinity towards God's way/accordance can be said to be a natural manifestation of human nature?

[Sponsored content]