Yeah, Otto has a great signature (of course, mine pwns all, but can't vote for your own.. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteBegin--OttoDestruct+Jun 10 2003, 05:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (OttoDestruct @ Jun 10 2003, 05:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My sig pwnz j00 all. Cause H.P. Lovecraft = pwnage^2. And I'm probably the only person on these boards with any idea who he is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Iä! Iä! You are not the only Lovecraft reader hereabouts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iä! Iä! You are not the only Lovecraft reader hereabouts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe release the Shoggoths and kill the non reading infidels! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Jun 10 2003, 01:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Jun 10 2003, 01:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Jun 9 2003, 06:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Jun 9 2003, 06:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Dr. D = best sig ever. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks I think so too. but I'm a little biased.
You talking about this one or my old "people have nothing to say and 10 million ways to say it" one?
Oh and if you turn your headlights on while driving the speed of light you would see the back of your own car, duh. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The one you have right now.
<!--QuoteBegin--H'BNayr+Jun 11 2003, 12:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (H'BNayr @ Jun 11 2003, 12:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But what would happen if you were to turn on your headlights while traveling at the speed of light? Well, that depends. Speed of light relative to what? The first thing to beat into your head before approaching relativity is that everything is relative, and nothing is ever at rest. Only more or less energized than another object. You might be sitting at your computer, but you, your chair, your computer, your room, and your house is all spinning quite swiftly across this ball, which is in turn revolving even more quickly around this mass of fusion energy, which is in turn revolving in this motley collection of stars we call a galaxy, which is in turn shooting away from the other galaxies out there. So if someone drove by moving at the speed of light relative to us, we wouldn't even notice him or her turning his lights on, no matter how quickly we could process the image of his or her passing. But whoever was in the car at the time would see the headlights turn on, just like normal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That can't be true, because there is an upper limit on how fast some things can go, relativity be damned. Sound cannot go faster than the speed of sound. Period. That's what creates the phenomenon of a sonic boom - if your jet is going as fast as the sound it creates, instead of the sound radiating away from the aircraft the aircraft is flying <i>in</i> the sound out the front of it. As it is still making noise, this sound gets added to the sound that's already there. This creates the shockwave and incredibly loud noise effect.
Light also has an upper limit. Light also can't go faster than light. Therefore you'd get the same effect!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So your saying, if i start pedaling on a bike, i am gaining mass becuase im using energy to accelerate myself?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The effect only happens as you get close to the speed of light. I don't know if it happens at any velocity (but the increase in mass is too miniscule to notice) but the effect is only noticable at speeds of like 99% C.
<!--QuoteBegin--SoulSkorpion+Jun 10 2003, 08:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Jun 10 2003, 08:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That can't be true, because there is an upper limit on how fast some things can go, relativity be damned. Sound cannot go faster than the speed of sound. Period. That's what creates the phenomenon of a sonic boom - if your jet is going as fast as the sound it creates, instead of the sound radiating away from the aircraft the aircraft is flying <i>in</i> the sound out the front of it. As it is still making noise, this sound gets added to the sound that's already there. This creates the shockwave and incredibly loud noise effect.
Light also has an upper limit. Light also can't go faster than light. Therefore you'd get the same effect! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your argument is flawed, however, as you say that sound cannot travel faster than the speed of sound, and then use as an example of an observer with the air molecules about them relatively still, and then running something faster than sound past through those air molecules. Sound cannot travel faster than sound, but those molecules the plane is traveling through are not moving much when compared to the motion of the observer, and sound relies completely of the collision of molecules to travel. Imagine a bubble around the jet that accelerates the air molecules along with the jet. (Or just imagine the cockpit, whichever is easier.) If the jet were pass Mach 1, and the air molecules around the jet were flowing at the same rate, there would be no violent collisions. The jet would have sound in front, to the sides and behind it, just as it would at sub-Mach speeds. Sound can move faster than the speed of sound in this case, relative to a "stationary" observer. To the pilot, it's not moving faster than sound. It's not until those air molecules started to collide with relatively motionless air molecules that a BOOM would start to generate.
Besides which, the speed of sound is not a constant. It depends on the material the sound is traveling through, and how fast the molecules in the material can ram into their partners and transfer energy along. Solids transfer sound faster, liquids further, and gas clearer. Sound is not a good measuring stick. Light, however, is constant when measured. But as you move faster, time slows down, so while light may travel further in relativistic situations, it is measured as the same speed.
The easiest way to think of it would be to imagine watching a friend dribble a basketball while on a train moving by. You see the ball going: \-----------O -\---------/ --\-------/ ---\-----/ ----\---/
While your friend sees: O | | | |
(Best. ASCII. Art. Evar.)
Both of you measure the length of the dribble to be the same, but you see the ball travel slightly longer than your friend sees. At normal speeds, like on a modern locomotive, this disparity is negligible, but when the train approaches relativistic speeds, this distance difference becomes more and more pronounced. The same time is measured when you compare stop watches, yet you see the ball moving much further in the same amount of time. How? Time actually slows down as you accelerate, becomes more and more pronounced at significant percentages of relativistic velocities. Now, it's not an easy thing to wrap your head around that. In the real world, you are used to time being a constant, not something that can flow at different speeds. <a href='http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae433.cfm' target='_blank'>But it is measured</a>. Search on Google, and you can find several more articles on the subject.
Now, with a basic idea of time dilation outlined, if you were moving at near the speed of light, relative to an observer, and you turned on your headlights, the observer wouldn't barely be able to measure it, or wouldn't be able to at all if you were moving AT the speed of light. For those sitting in the car, however, time has moved to molasses relative to those watching, and they would observe the light beams move away from the car at the "normal" speed of light.
Make sense?
My powers of off-topic-ness pwn you all!
-Ryan!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible... but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein
"The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein
my mom thinks my sig is cool <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
anyway, i think mine is up there, as many people say they like it......
EDIT: due to my friend having sever problems..... my sig cant be shown
<!--QuoteBegin--H'BNayr+Jun 11 2003, 01:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (H'BNayr @ Jun 11 2003, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SoulSkorpion+Jun 10 2003, 08:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Jun 10 2003, 08:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That can't be true, because there is an upper limit on how fast some things can go, relativity be damned. Sound cannot go faster than the speed of sound. Period. That's what creates the phenomenon of a sonic boom - if your jet is going as fast as the sound it creates, instead of the sound radiating away from the aircraft the aircraft is flying <i>in</i> the sound out the front of it. As it is still making noise, this sound gets added to the sound that's already there. This creates the shockwave and incredibly loud noise effect.
Light also has an upper limit. Light also can't go faster than light. Therefore you'd get the same effect! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your argument is flawed, however, as you say that sound cannot travel faster than the speed of sound, and then use as an example of an observer with the air molecules about them relatively still, and then running something faster than sound past through those air molecules. Sound cannot travel faster than sound, but those molecules the plane is traveling through are not moving much when compared to the motion of the observer, and sound relies completely of the collision of molecules to travel. Imagine a bubble around the jet that accelerates the air molecules along with the jet. (Or just imagine the cockpit, whichever is easier.) If the jet were pass Mach 1, and the air molecules around the jet were flowing at the same rate, there would be no violent collisions. The jet would have sound in front, to the sides and behind it, just as it would at sub-Mach speeds. Sound can move faster than the speed of sound in this case, relative to a "stationary" observer. To the pilot, it's not moving faster than sound. It's not until those air molecules started to collide with relatively motionless air molecules that a BOOM would start to generate.
Besides which, the speed of sound is not a constant. It depends on the material the sound is traveling through, and how fast the molecules in the material can ram into their partners and transfer energy along. Solids transfer sound faster, liquids further, and gas clearer. Sound is not a good measuring stick. Light, however, is constant when measured. But as you move faster, time slows down, so while light may travel further in relativistic situations, it is measured as the same speed.
The easiest way to think of it would be to imagine watching a friend dribble a basketball while on a train moving by. You see the ball going: \-----------O -\---------/ --\-------/ ---\-----/ ----\---/
While your friend sees: O | | | |
(Best. ASCII. Art. Evar.)
Both of you measure the length of the dribble to be the same, but you see the ball travel slightly longer than your friend sees. At normal speeds, like on a modern locomotive, this disparity is negligible, but when the train approaches relativistic speeds, this distance difference becomes more and more pronounced. The same time is measured when you compare stop watches, yet you see the ball moving much further in the same amount of time. How? Time actually slows down as you accelerate, becomes more and more pronounced at significant percentages of relativistic velocities. Now, it's not an easy thing to wrap your head around that. In the real world, you are used to time being a constant, not something that can flow at different speeds. <a href='http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae433.cfm' target='_blank'>But it is measured</a>. Search on Google, and you can find several more articles on the subject.
Now, with a basic idea of time dilation outlined, if you were moving at near the speed of light, relative to an observer, and you turned on your headlights, the observer wouldn't barely be able to measure it, or wouldn't be able to at all if you were moving AT the speed of light. For those sitting in the car, however, time has moved to molasses relative to those watching, and they would observe the light beams move away from the car at the "normal" speed of light.
Make sense?
My powers of off-topic-ness pwn you all!
-Ryan!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible... but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein
"The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think I folllowed your explanation of why my explanation of sonic booms is flawed properly, but I'll have a crack at it.
The speed of sound depends on the medium, right? Let's say that our medium is air. Sound is then oscillating air molecules. The amplitude, or volume, of the sound is the degree to which the molucules vibrate back and forwards around their mean position.
Take a slinky, stretch it out, and send a pulse through it (you know, flick one end back and forwards). The pulse travels down the slinky. Now, if you do that on a train, if you do that standing still, if you do that in deep space - the rate at which the pulse propagates along the slinky depends totally on the force you apply to it and the slinky itself.
Take sound. It doesn't matter whether the air is still or moving at a constant velocity - the "speed of sound" is the speed of the propagation of the sound waves, not the speed at which the molecules are physically moving. The air molecules move very little, if at all (in theory they should return exactly to their original positions without having moved at all).
Sound waves are propagated through a medium at a constant rate, assuming that the medium is consistent. That's all there is to it. This rate is known as the speed of sound for that medium.
Sonic booms occur because the source of the sound pulse is moving with the pulse at the same rate as the pulse. As the sound waves are propagated away from their source point, they are being further amplified by MORE sound waves. This only occurs AT the speed of sound - past the speed of sound an object will still generate sound but will move faster than this sound can propagate; you will hear the object after it's already been. Some guns can fire bullets at such velocity that they can hit their target before they hear the gunshot, because the bullet arrives before the sound waves.
How is this any different to light, other than the impossibility of moving at lightspeed (in a car, of all things) (which we've already ignored)?
About the business of the people sitting in the car - they can't see the beams of light moving away from them as normal. You can't see light.
Look, say you're going at light speed and you turn your headlights on. They start emitting photons of light. Since there is an upper limit on how fast these photons can travel, and these photons are already travelling at that upper limit, they accumulate instead of shooting forward like normal. You can't see the effect while it's happening because A: you can't see light and B: the photons are down by your headlights anyway. If you were to stop, or deaccelerate, and switch off your lights you still wouldn't see what happens, but a packet of light would seem to emit from the car (it's just kept going; the car has stopped). You'd only detect the effect when the packet hits something.
And I thought this was "The coolest signature" thread... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--SoulSkorpion+Jun 11 2003, 01:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Jun 11 2003, 01:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> About the business of the people sitting in the car - they can't see the beams of light moving away from them as normal. You can't see light.
Look, say you're going at light speed and you turn your headlights on. They start emitting photons of light. Since there is an upper limit on how fast these photons can travel, and these photons are already travelling at that upper limit, they accumulate instead of shooting forward like normal. You can't see the effect while it's happening because A: you can't see light and B: the photons are down by your headlights anyway. If you were to stop, or deaccelerate, and switch off your lights you still wouldn't see what happens, but a packet of light would seem to emit from the car (it's just kept going; the car has stopped). You'd only detect the effect when the packet hits something. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're still thinking that there is a set "stop" position. There is no place at rest in the universe. So even if a car is moving at the speed of light <i>relative</i> to an observer, those sitting in the car see the objects in the car as being still, and the observer passing by at the speed of light. The idea of the speed of light being a constant only means that the speed is always measured the same, no matter what frame of reference you are in. So if you are travelling at slightly slower than the speed of light, the "stationary" observer would measure the light as moving slowly relative to the car itself, but it would be measured as the speed of light. As a constant. If the car were moving at the speed of light, the observer would measure would not be able to measure the light.
Those inside the car itself, however, do not see themselves as moving at the speed of light. They see themselves, and the car itself, completely stationary, with the observer moving past at the speed of light. Time dilation would be in full effect, and "normal" time would be incredibly, incredibly fast to them. And because the speed of light is constant no matter what frame of reference you are in, they would view their headlights being turned on just as normally as they would if they were "stationary." Remember, the observer would see an extremely slow light <i>relative</i> to the car, but the speed of light would be measured as "normal" overall. For those IN the car, that "slow" light is moving extremely, extremely fast. So fast, in fact, that the speed of light would be measured if they had some way of measuring said light beams.
The speed of light is not an absolute that cannot be added onto, it's a <i>constant</i> that is confirmed no matter the frame of reference.
Two things that really blew my mind when learning about relativity: First, there is no position of rest. Everything is moving, constantly. It's easy to picture, but then I found I had to keep reminding myself that there is no absolute stopped point anywhere in the universe. Remember that, and try to imagine any movements relative to another point. The second thing is a point I'm still having trouble with: time is NOT absolute. The rate at which time passes is different between different relative points. We are spoiled here on the Earth, as everyone is basically moving together. But start moving that around, and things get real difficult real fast. Once I beat those concepts into my head, relativity became easier to understand.
But then you just end up with twice as many answers. What happens to the people in the car if the car DOES manage to go the speed of light relative to the observer? An impossibility, of course, because of the infinite energy required, but does time dilation become so extreme that they literally freeze in time until they decelerate? In which case, they wouldn't notice a difference, because traveling for 8 minutes or 800 years at the speed of light would pass in, literally, less than an instant for them. So they would still see the headlight normally, because the only time it WOULDN'T be measurable would be the time that time stood still for them, and they were unable to measure ANYTHING. What if the observer where to start walking in the opposite direction? Say, 4 miles an hour, and the car was 2 mph short of the speed of light. The observer would still be able to measure the speed at which the headlights travel across the universe, but do the people inside the car see a man walk in the opposite direction at a speed <i>faster</i> than the speed of light?
I hope that I was a bit more clear in this posting. Relativity is a hard animal to get a bite on, and I gnawed on it for quite a long time before something clicked in my head, and if I can push someone else down that path far enough to see what I'm talking about, I would be ever so happy.
Chances are, though, I'm barely even coherent.
And to whomever's thread I jacked here, I sincerely apologize. Back to the sigs!
-Ryan!
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax." -- Albert Einstein
<!--QuoteBegin--SoulSkorpion+Jun 11 2003, 02:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Jun 11 2003, 02:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So... the photons from the headlight would come out at what "stationary" observers see as 2c, but that actually is c to the people in the car? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The stationary observer should view the light coming out of the car at c minus the speed the car is travelling, and measure the total speed of light as c, the constant. Those in the car experience time dilation, so rather than seeing c minus the speed of the car, they see the light zipping out at the constant c. The speed of light is always constant, no matter your frame of reference.
An example once given to me that I still can't quite explain was the concept of two travellers heading towards each other, each moving at half of c relative to a stationary observer. They are on a collision course at the speed c relative to one another, but if they were to turn on their headlights at this point, the light would remain constant relative to all three persons (each traveller and the "stationary" observer). I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one, and maybe I should muse on it tonight.
With that said, I bid you good night. Hopefully, I've shed some amount of light on a path there. If not, I blame the lack of sleep.
-Ryan!
"But far more numerous was the herd of such, Who think too little, and who talk too much." -- John Dryden
To be sure, the vast majority of people who are untrained can accept the results of science only on authority. But there is obviously an important difference between an establishment that is open and invites everyone to come, study its methods, and suggest improvement, and one that regards the questioning of its credentials as due to wickedness of the heart, such as [Cardinal] Newman attributed to those who questioned the infallibility of the Bible...Rational science treats its credit notes as always redeemable on demand, while non-rational authoritarianism regards the demand for the redemption of its paper as a disloyal lack of faith. -- Morris Cohen, Reason and Nature, 1931
Thanks for the insight H'BNayr, it's an interesting concept to ponder. I never would have thought an explantion of a simple formula could have dreailed this thread so completely. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Also, H'BNayr and SoulSkorpion, its nice to see some people with intelligence actually do visit these forums. It is perhaps ironic that SoulSkorpion and I both frequent the same server in Perth, Western Australia (ie. the a***hole of the world)
<!--QuoteBegin--Jefe+Jun 10 2003, 10:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jefe @ Jun 10 2003, 10:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SBV+Jun 10 2003, 01:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SBV @ Jun 10 2003, 01:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Jefe, as i made it and it is "elite". <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That doesn't denounce the fact that it is my sig. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I just thought it was the best, its just a bonus that i made it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Jun 11 2003, 03:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Jun 11 2003, 03:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I like the EC member's sig images. I always like my quotes the best. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Woo <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--SBV+Jun 11 2003, 08:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SBV @ Jun 11 2003, 08:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Jefe+Jun 10 2003, 10:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jefe @ Jun 10 2003, 10:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SBV+Jun 10 2003, 01:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SBV @ Jun 10 2003, 01:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Jefe, as i made it and it is "elite". <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That doesn't denounce the fact that it is my sig. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just thought it was the best, its just a bonus that i made it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well...now that I read it right. Thanks for pointing that out.
<!--QuoteBegin--H'BNayr+Jun 11 2003, 02:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (H'BNayr @ Jun 11 2003, 02:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SoulSkorpion+Jun 11 2003, 01:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Jun 11 2003, 01:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> About the business of the people sitting in the car - they can't see the beams of light moving away from them as normal. You can't see light.
Look, say you're going at light speed and you turn your headlights on. They start emitting photons of light. Since there is an upper limit on how fast these photons can travel, and these photons are already travelling at that upper limit, they accumulate instead of shooting forward like normal. You can't see the effect while it's happening because A: you can't see light and B: the photons are down by your headlights anyway. If you were to stop, or deaccelerate, and switch off your lights you still wouldn't see what happens, but a packet of light would seem to emit from the car (it's just kept going; the car has stopped). You'd only detect the effect when the packet hits something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're still thinking that there is a set "stop" position. There is no place at rest in the universe. So even if a car is moving at the speed of light <i>relative</i> to an observer, those sitting in the car see the objects in the car as being still, and the observer passing by at the speed of light. The idea of the speed of light being a constant only means that the speed is always measured the same, no matter what frame of reference you are in. So if you are travelling at slightly slower than the speed of light, the "stationary" observer would measure the light as moving slowly relative to the car itself, but it would be measured as the speed of light. As a constant. If the car were moving at the speed of light, the observer would measure would not be able to measure the light.
Those inside the car itself, however, do not see themselves as moving at the speed of light. They see themselves, and the car itself, completely stationary, with the observer moving past at the speed of light. Time dilation would be in full effect, and "normal" time would be incredibly, incredibly fast to them. And because the speed of light is constant no matter what frame of reference you are in, they would view their headlights being turned on just as normally as they would if they were "stationary." Remember, the observer would see an extremely slow light <i>relative</i> to the car, but the speed of light would be measured as "normal" overall. For those IN the car, that "slow" light is moving extremely, extremely fast. So fast, in fact, that the speed of light would be measured if they had some way of measuring said light beams.
The speed of light is not an absolute that cannot be added onto, it's a <i>constant</i> that is confirmed no matter the frame of reference.
Two things that really blew my mind when learning about relativity: First, there is no position of rest. Everything is moving, constantly. It's easy to picture, but then I found I had to keep reminding myself that there is no absolute stopped point anywhere in the universe. Remember that, and try to imagine any movements relative to another point. The second thing is a point I'm still having trouble with: time is NOT absolute. The rate at which time passes is different between different relative points. We are spoiled here on the Earth, as everyone is basically moving together. But start moving that around, and things get real difficult real fast. Once I beat those concepts into my head, relativity became easier to understand.
But then you just end up with twice as many answers. What happens to the people in the car if the car DOES manage to go the speed of light relative to the observer? An impossibility, of course, because of the infinite energy required, but does time dilation become so extreme that they literally freeze in time until they decelerate? In which case, they wouldn't notice a difference, because traveling for 8 minutes or 800 years at the speed of light would pass in, literally, less than an instant for them. So they would still see the headlight normally, because the only time it WOULDN'T be measurable would be the time that time stood still for them, and they were unable to measure ANYTHING. What if the observer where to start walking in the opposite direction? Say, 4 miles an hour, and the car was 2 mph short of the speed of light. The observer would still be able to measure the speed at which the headlights travel across the universe, but do the people inside the car see a man walk in the opposite direction at a speed <i>faster</i> than the speed of light?
I hope that I was a bit more clear in this posting. Relativity is a hard animal to get a bite on, and I gnawed on it for quite a long time before something clicked in my head, and if I can push someone else down that path far enough to see what I'm talking about, I would be ever so happy.
Chances are, though, I'm barely even coherent.
And to whomever's thread I jacked here, I sincerely apologize. Back to the sigs!
-Ryan!
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax." -- Albert Einstein <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> dang, thats like an essay
Comments
Iä! Iä! You are not the only Lovecraft reader hereabouts.
Hehe release the Shoggoths and kill the non reading infidels! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Thanks I think so too. but I'm a little biased.
You talking about this one or my old "people have nothing to say and 10 million ways to say it" one?
Oh and if you turn your headlights on while driving the speed of light you would see the back of your own car, duh. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The one you have right now.
That can't be true, because there is an upper limit on how fast some things can go, relativity be damned. Sound cannot go faster than the speed of sound. Period. That's what creates the phenomenon of a sonic boom - if your jet is going as fast as the sound it creates, instead of the sound radiating away from the aircraft the aircraft is flying <i>in</i> the sound out the front of it. As it is still making noise, this sound gets added to the sound that's already there. This creates the shockwave and incredibly loud noise effect.
Light also has an upper limit. Light also can't go faster than light. Therefore you'd get the same effect!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So your saying, if i start pedaling on a bike, i am gaining mass becuase im using energy to accelerate myself?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The effect only happens as you get close to the speed of light. I don't know if it happens at any velocity (but the increase in mass is too miniscule to notice) but the effect is only noticable at speeds of like 99% C.
Light also has an upper limit. Light also can't go faster than light. Therefore you'd get the same effect! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your argument is flawed, however, as you say that sound cannot travel faster than the speed of sound, and then use as an example of an observer with the air molecules about them relatively still, and then running something faster than sound past through those air molecules. Sound cannot travel faster than sound, but those molecules the plane is traveling through are not moving much when compared to the motion of the observer, and sound relies completely of the collision of molecules to travel. Imagine a bubble around the jet that accelerates the air molecules along with the jet. (Or just imagine the cockpit, whichever is easier.) If the jet were pass Mach 1, and the air molecules around the jet were flowing at the same rate, there would be no violent collisions. The jet would have sound in front, to the sides and behind it, just as it would at sub-Mach speeds. Sound can move faster than the speed of sound in this case, relative to a "stationary" observer. To the pilot, it's not moving faster than sound. It's not until those air molecules started to collide with relatively motionless air molecules that a BOOM would start to generate.
Besides which, the speed of sound is not a constant. It depends on the material the sound is traveling through, and how fast the molecules in the material can ram into their partners and transfer energy along. Solids transfer sound faster, liquids further, and gas clearer. Sound is not a good measuring stick. Light, however, is constant when measured. But as you move faster, time slows down, so while light may travel further in relativistic situations, it is measured as the same speed.
The easiest way to think of it would be to imagine watching a friend dribble a basketball while on a train moving by. You see the ball going:
\-----------O
-\---------/
--\-------/
---\-----/
----\---/
While your friend sees:
O
|
|
|
|
(Best. ASCII. Art. Evar.)
Both of you measure the length of the dribble to be the same, but you see the ball travel slightly longer than your friend sees. At normal speeds, like on a modern locomotive, this disparity is negligible, but when the train approaches relativistic speeds, this distance difference becomes more and more pronounced. The same time is measured when you compare stop watches, yet you see the ball moving much further in the same amount of time. How? Time actually slows down as you accelerate, becomes more and more pronounced at significant percentages of relativistic velocities. Now, it's not an easy thing to wrap your head around that. In the real world, you are used to time being a constant, not something that can flow at different speeds. <a href='http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae433.cfm' target='_blank'>But it is measured</a>. Search on Google, and you can find several more articles on the subject.
Now, with a basic idea of time dilation outlined, if you were moving at near the speed of light, relative to an observer, and you turned on your headlights, the observer wouldn't barely be able to measure it, or wouldn't be able to at all if you were moving AT the speed of light. For those sitting in the car, however, time has moved to molasses relative to those watching, and they would observe the light beams move away from the car at the "normal" speed of light.
Make sense?
My powers of off-topic-ness pwn you all!
-Ryan!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible... but not simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
"The important thing is not to stop questioning."
-- Albert Einstein
anyway, i think mine is up there, as many people say they like it......
EDIT: due to my friend having sever problems..... my sig cant be shown
Light also has an upper limit. Light also can't go faster than light. Therefore you'd get the same effect! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your argument is flawed, however, as you say that sound cannot travel faster than the speed of sound, and then use as an example of an observer with the air molecules about them relatively still, and then running something faster than sound past through those air molecules. Sound cannot travel faster than sound, but those molecules the plane is traveling through are not moving much when compared to the motion of the observer, and sound relies completely of the collision of molecules to travel. Imagine a bubble around the jet that accelerates the air molecules along with the jet. (Or just imagine the cockpit, whichever is easier.) If the jet were pass Mach 1, and the air molecules around the jet were flowing at the same rate, there would be no violent collisions. The jet would have sound in front, to the sides and behind it, just as it would at sub-Mach speeds. Sound can move faster than the speed of sound in this case, relative to a "stationary" observer. To the pilot, it's not moving faster than sound. It's not until those air molecules started to collide with relatively motionless air molecules that a BOOM would start to generate.
Besides which, the speed of sound is not a constant. It depends on the material the sound is traveling through, and how fast the molecules in the material can ram into their partners and transfer energy along. Solids transfer sound faster, liquids further, and gas clearer. Sound is not a good measuring stick. Light, however, is constant when measured. But as you move faster, time slows down, so while light may travel further in relativistic situations, it is measured as the same speed.
The easiest way to think of it would be to imagine watching a friend dribble a basketball while on a train moving by. You see the ball going:
\-----------O
-\---------/
--\-------/
---\-----/
----\---/
While your friend sees:
O
|
|
|
|
(Best. ASCII. Art. Evar.)
Both of you measure the length of the dribble to be the same, but you see the ball travel slightly longer than your friend sees. At normal speeds, like on a modern locomotive, this disparity is negligible, but when the train approaches relativistic speeds, this distance difference becomes more and more pronounced. The same time is measured when you compare stop watches, yet you see the ball moving much further in the same amount of time. How? Time actually slows down as you accelerate, becomes more and more pronounced at significant percentages of relativistic velocities. Now, it's not an easy thing to wrap your head around that. In the real world, you are used to time being a constant, not something that can flow at different speeds. <a href='http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae433.cfm' target='_blank'>But it is measured</a>. Search on Google, and you can find several more articles on the subject.
Now, with a basic idea of time dilation outlined, if you were moving at near the speed of light, relative to an observer, and you turned on your headlights, the observer wouldn't barely be able to measure it, or wouldn't be able to at all if you were moving AT the speed of light. For those sitting in the car, however, time has moved to molasses relative to those watching, and they would observe the light beams move away from the car at the "normal" speed of light.
Make sense?
My powers of off-topic-ness pwn you all!
-Ryan!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible... but not simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
"The important thing is not to stop questioning."
-- Albert Einstein <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think I folllowed your explanation of why my explanation of sonic booms is flawed properly, but I'll have a crack at it.
The speed of sound depends on the medium, right? Let's say that our medium is air. Sound is then oscillating air molecules. The amplitude, or volume, of the sound is the degree to which the molucules vibrate back and forwards around their mean position.
Take a slinky, stretch it out, and send a pulse through it (you know, flick one end back and forwards). The pulse travels down the slinky. Now, if you do that on a train, if you do that standing still, if you do that in deep space - the rate at which the pulse propagates along the slinky depends totally on the force you apply to it and the slinky itself.
Take sound. It doesn't matter whether the air is still or moving at a constant velocity - the "speed of sound" is the speed of the propagation of the sound waves, not the speed at which the molecules are physically moving. The air molecules move very little, if at all (in theory they should return exactly to their original positions without having moved at all).
Sound waves are propagated through a medium at a constant rate, assuming that the medium is consistent. That's all there is to it. This rate is known as the speed of sound for that medium.
Sonic booms occur because the source of the sound pulse is moving with the pulse at the same rate as the pulse. As the sound waves are propagated away from their source point, they are being further amplified by MORE sound waves. This only occurs AT the speed of sound - past the speed of sound an object will still generate sound but will move faster than this sound can propagate; you will hear the object after it's already been. Some guns can fire bullets at such velocity that they can hit their target before they hear the gunshot, because the bullet arrives before the sound waves.
How is this any different to light, other than the impossibility of moving at lightspeed (in a car, of all things) (which we've already ignored)?
About the business of the people sitting in the car - they can't see the beams of light moving away from them as normal. You can't see light.
Look, say you're going at light speed and you turn your headlights on. They start emitting photons of light. Since there is an upper limit on how fast these photons can travel, and these photons are already travelling at that upper limit, they accumulate instead of shooting forward like normal. You can't see the effect while it's happening because A: you can't see light and B: the photons are down by your headlights anyway. If you were to stop, or deaccelerate, and switch off your lights you still wouldn't see what happens, but a packet of light would seem to emit from the car (it's just kept going; the car has stopped). You'd only detect the effect when the packet hits something.
Look, say you're going at light speed and you turn your headlights on. They start emitting photons of light. Since there is an upper limit on how fast these photons can travel, and these photons are already travelling at that upper limit, they accumulate instead of shooting forward like normal. You can't see the effect while it's happening because A: you can't see light and B: the photons are down by your headlights anyway. If you were to stop, or deaccelerate, and switch off your lights you still wouldn't see what happens, but a packet of light would seem to emit from the car (it's just kept going; the car has stopped). You'd only detect the effect when the packet hits something. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're still thinking that there is a set "stop" position. There is no place at rest in the universe. So even if a car is moving at the speed of light <i>relative</i> to an observer, those sitting in the car see the objects in the car as being still, and the observer passing by at the speed of light. The idea of the speed of light being a constant only means that the speed is always measured the same, no matter what frame of reference you are in. So if you are travelling at slightly slower than the speed of light, the "stationary" observer would measure the light as moving slowly relative to the car itself, but it would be measured as the speed of light. As a constant. If the car were moving at the speed of light, the observer would measure would not be able to measure the light.
Those inside the car itself, however, do not see themselves as moving at the speed of light. They see themselves, and the car itself, completely stationary, with the observer moving past at the speed of light. Time dilation would be in full effect, and "normal" time would be incredibly, incredibly fast to them. And because the speed of light is constant no matter what frame of reference you are in, they would view their headlights being turned on just as normally as they would if they were "stationary." Remember, the observer would see an extremely slow light <i>relative</i> to the car, but the speed of light would be measured as "normal" overall. For those IN the car, that "slow" light is moving extremely, extremely fast. So fast, in fact, that the speed of light would be measured if they had some way of measuring said light beams.
The speed of light is not an absolute that cannot be added onto, it's a <i>constant</i> that is confirmed no matter the frame of reference.
Two things that really blew my mind when learning about relativity: First, there is no position of rest. Everything is moving, constantly. It's easy to picture, but then I found I had to keep reminding myself that there is no absolute stopped point anywhere in the universe. Remember that, and try to imagine any movements relative to another point. The second thing is a point I'm still having trouble with: time is NOT absolute. The rate at which time passes is different between different relative points. We are spoiled here on the Earth, as everyone is basically moving together. But start moving that around, and things get real difficult real fast. Once I beat those concepts into my head, relativity became easier to understand.
But then you just end up with twice as many answers. What happens to the people in the car if the car DOES manage to go the speed of light relative to the observer? An impossibility, of course, because of the infinite energy required, but does time dilation become so extreme that they literally freeze in time until they decelerate? In which case, they wouldn't notice a difference, because traveling for 8 minutes or 800 years at the speed of light would pass in, literally, less than an instant for them. So they would still see the headlight normally, because the only time it WOULDN'T be measurable would be the time that time stood still for them, and they were unable to measure ANYTHING. What if the observer where to start walking in the opposite direction? Say, 4 miles an hour, and the car was 2 mph short of the speed of light. The observer would still be able to measure the speed at which the headlights travel across the universe, but do the people inside the car see a man walk in the opposite direction at a speed <i>faster</i> than the speed of light?
I hope that I was a bit more clear in this posting. Relativity is a hard animal to get a bite on, and I gnawed on it for quite a long time before something clicked in my head, and if I can push someone else down that path far enough to see what I'm talking about, I would be ever so happy.
Chances are, though, I'm barely even coherent.
And to whomever's thread I jacked here, I sincerely apologize. Back to the sigs!
-Ryan!
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."
-- Albert Einstein
The stationary observer should view the light coming out of the car at c minus the speed the car is travelling, and measure the total speed of light as c, the constant. Those in the car experience time dilation, so rather than seeing c minus the speed of the car, they see the light zipping out at the constant c. The speed of light is always constant, no matter your frame of reference.
An example once given to me that I still can't quite explain was the concept of two travellers heading towards each other, each moving at half of c relative to a stationary observer. They are on a collision course at the speed c relative to one another, but if they were to turn on their headlights at this point, the light would remain constant relative to all three persons (each traveller and the "stationary" observer). I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one, and maybe I should muse on it tonight.
With that said, I bid you good night. Hopefully, I've shed some amount of light on a path there. If not, I blame the lack of sleep.
-Ryan!
"But far more numerous was the herd of such,
Who think too little, and who talk too much."
-- John Dryden
To be sure, the vast majority of people who are untrained can accept the results of science only on authority. But there is obviously an important difference between an establishment that is open and invites everyone to come, study its methods, and suggest improvement, and one that regards the questioning of its credentials as due to wickedness of the heart, such as [Cardinal] Newman attributed to those who questioned the infallibility of the Bible...Rational science treats its credit notes as always redeemable on demand, while non-rational authoritarianism regards the demand for the redemption of its paper as a disloyal lack of faith.
-- Morris Cohen, Reason and Nature, 1931
Also, H'BNayr and SoulSkorpion, its nice to see some people with intelligence actually do visit these forums. It is perhaps ironic that SoulSkorpion and I both frequent the same server in Perth, Western Australia (ie. the a***hole of the world)
That doesn't denounce the fact that it is my sig. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just thought it was the best, its just a bonus that i made it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Woo <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I quite like them too ^_^
since i am not him, i can nominate his sig
it is pwnz
That doesn't denounce the fact that it is my sig. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just thought it was the best, its just a bonus that i made it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well...now that I read it right. Thanks for pointing that out.
Look, say you're going at light speed and you turn your headlights on. They start emitting photons of light. Since there is an upper limit on how fast these photons can travel, and these photons are already travelling at that upper limit, they accumulate instead of shooting forward like normal. You can't see the effect while it's happening because A: you can't see light and B: the photons are down by your headlights anyway. If you were to stop, or deaccelerate, and switch off your lights you still wouldn't see what happens, but a packet of light would seem to emit from the car (it's just kept going; the car has stopped). You'd only detect the effect when the packet hits something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're still thinking that there is a set "stop" position. There is no place at rest in the universe. So even if a car is moving at the speed of light <i>relative</i> to an observer, those sitting in the car see the objects in the car as being still, and the observer passing by at the speed of light. The idea of the speed of light being a constant only means that the speed is always measured the same, no matter what frame of reference you are in. So if you are travelling at slightly slower than the speed of light, the "stationary" observer would measure the light as moving slowly relative to the car itself, but it would be measured as the speed of light. As a constant. If the car were moving at the speed of light, the observer would measure would not be able to measure the light.
Those inside the car itself, however, do not see themselves as moving at the speed of light. They see themselves, and the car itself, completely stationary, with the observer moving past at the speed of light. Time dilation would be in full effect, and "normal" time would be incredibly, incredibly fast to them. And because the speed of light is constant no matter what frame of reference you are in, they would view their headlights being turned on just as normally as they would if they were "stationary." Remember, the observer would see an extremely slow light <i>relative</i> to the car, but the speed of light would be measured as "normal" overall. For those IN the car, that "slow" light is moving extremely, extremely fast. So fast, in fact, that the speed of light would be measured if they had some way of measuring said light beams.
The speed of light is not an absolute that cannot be added onto, it's a <i>constant</i> that is confirmed no matter the frame of reference.
Two things that really blew my mind when learning about relativity: First, there is no position of rest. Everything is moving, constantly. It's easy to picture, but then I found I had to keep reminding myself that there is no absolute stopped point anywhere in the universe. Remember that, and try to imagine any movements relative to another point. The second thing is a point I'm still having trouble with: time is NOT absolute. The rate at which time passes is different between different relative points. We are spoiled here on the Earth, as everyone is basically moving together. But start moving that around, and things get real difficult real fast. Once I beat those concepts into my head, relativity became easier to understand.
But then you just end up with twice as many answers. What happens to the people in the car if the car DOES manage to go the speed of light relative to the observer? An impossibility, of course, because of the infinite energy required, but does time dilation become so extreme that they literally freeze in time until they decelerate? In which case, they wouldn't notice a difference, because traveling for 8 minutes or 800 years at the speed of light would pass in, literally, less than an instant for them. So they would still see the headlight normally, because the only time it WOULDN'T be measurable would be the time that time stood still for them, and they were unable to measure ANYTHING. What if the observer where to start walking in the opposite direction? Say, 4 miles an hour, and the car was 2 mph short of the speed of light. The observer would still be able to measure the speed at which the headlights travel across the universe, but do the people inside the car see a man walk in the opposite direction at a speed <i>faster</i> than the speed of light?
I hope that I was a bit more clear in this posting. Relativity is a hard animal to get a bite on, and I gnawed on it for quite a long time before something clicked in my head, and if I can push someone else down that path far enough to see what I'm talking about, I would be ever so happy.
Chances are, though, I'm barely even coherent.
And to whomever's thread I jacked here, I sincerely apologize. Back to the sigs!
-Ryan!
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."
-- Albert Einstein <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
dang, thats like an essay