The only thing faster than light is dark. No matter how fast light travels, darkness is always in front.
...
I don't think we can go faster than light due to e = m (c squared). You'd have to have negative mass, IIRC. I may be wrong since I went to school years ago, and have since forgotten my entire education.
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Nov 3 2004, 04:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Nov 3 2004, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Nov 2 2004, 05:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Nov 2 2004, 05:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The second program shouldn't halt either because maxint is an infinate value, and infinity - 1 = infinity, thus no random number (all real integers must be found on the number scale, and all random numbers must be real integers) scale can equal the value of the test condition. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> MAXINT is not infinity. It is defined as a particular integer value. If it's throwing you off, just consider random numbers from 1 to 10. There is a possibility that you will never, ever get a five, no matter how many numbers you choose. A rediculously small chance, but it exists.
The correct answer to the question, "will that code halt," is maybe. Because it is not in the set of <i>any</i> decidable languages, you can't solve it yourself, let alone a computer. There does not exist a true statement to compare this to, either.
And you can have leaks small enough to ooze liquids (or very small cells/cell debris), yet block red blood cells from passing through. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I thought we were talking about Maxint in terms of a real numbers scale, in which case there is no maxint, causing the maximum value for an integer to be infinate.
<i>How does solar power work (the intricacies)?</i>
<a href='http://www.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell.htm' target='_blank'>Here</a> is a good (and easily understandable) explanation.
<i>A lightning strike supposedly generates twice as much power as the world's electricity power put together PER strike. If we had a rod connecting to power cells, why wouldn't it be possible to use this power to generate electricity for years on end?</i>
Don't confuse power with energy. What the above statement means is that, if all the energy in the lightning bolt was converted into useful energy, it could power the world for twice the amount of time the lightning bolt is active (ie: a few microseconds). Which doesn't work out to that much energy, really. Capturing most of the energy in a lightning strike would be pretty hard. Most of the energy is used up ionising the air between the clouds and ground (it gets converted to light, heat, noise) so you would somehow have to run a wire from the clouds, another wire connected to the ground and you would have the 'terminals' of your battery. It would also be hard to either store or convert the electricity when it lasts for such a short time. Having said all this, I did read that the energy in a supercell thunderstorm cloud is like a nuke going off every second. Quite impressive.
<i>Why can't we use geothermal energy?</i>
We do, but in most places it's too hard to get to with our present engineering. So you mostly get geothermal plants in volcanic areas where the hot rocks are not so deep underground. Even there its cheaper to just burn fossil fuels which is the real (boring) answer.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Nov 3 2004, 04:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Nov 3 2004, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The correct answer to the question, "will that code halt," is maybe. Because it is not in the set of <i>any</i> decidable languages, you can't solve it yourself, let alone a computer. There does not exist a true statement to compare this to, either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's interesting. I don't know if random numbers have been properly explored as an aspect of computing (since a turing machine certainly can't create one)
Is the speed of light deemed the fastest it's possible to go because light itself travels as fast as it can go? Otherwise, why is it not plausible to go faster than the speed of light? Admittedly your vision would probably go a bit askew (Read: pear shaped) but I don't see why it's not <i>technically</i> possible otherwise. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Light has 0 mass, so yes, the speed that it can go is the fastest anything can go, unless of course you come up with a way to have negative mass. That speed limit is a fundamental property of the geometry of 4 dimentional space. It is impossible for an object to move faster than that, because it is impossible for velocities that are faster than that to exist. Its a property of the geometry.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 3 2004, 10:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 3 2004, 10:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Light has 0 mass, so yes, the speed that it can go is the fastest anything can go, <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You sure about that? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> (it isn't proven, in fact light has some properties like a particle of matter, better read up on your quantum physics and avoid using those all/no statements which are almost always wrong)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the speed that it can go is the fastest anything can go,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So says conventional physics, but there are several things that happen differently at the atomic level or astronomical level.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->unless of course you come up with a way to have negative mass.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now you're just being silly <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That speed limit is a fundamental property of the geometry of 4 dimentional space. It is impossible for an object to move faster than that, because it is impossible for velocities that are faster than that to exist. Its a property of the geometry.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Velocity != geometry
And besides I'd love to critique your mathematical proof for that theory of yours.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2004
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> This is relativity, I know what I'm talking about. If I had the patience for lab classes I'd be a physics minor. Photons have zero mass. Their rest energy is zero. This is known. Relativity reduces all of these things down to the properties of 4 dimensional Lorentz geometry. Do you know what you are talking about and am I just explaining this poorly or do you have any idea at all?
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 3 2004, 10:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 3 2004, 10:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> This is relativity, I know what I'm talking about. If I had the patience for lab classes I'd be a physics minor. Photons have zero mass. Their rest energy is zero. This is known. Relativity reduces all of these things down to the properties of 4 dimensional Lorentz geometry. Do you know what you are talking about and am I just explaining this poorly or do you have any idea at all? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd say about half of the people in this forum truely understand what they are talking about
I do indeed understand what you are talking about. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Please go on.
I'm just trying to remind you that we can't assume that lightspeed is the fastest velocity until proven. Remember it only takes one exception or flaw in a theory to prove it wrong. That's all. I was just cautioning against using all/none statements. Sorry if I did it a bit harsh, I'm in a depressed and angry mood today. (snidely's insult didn't help either)
Please go on about 4th dimensional space stuff, I'd love to discuss it.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-x5+Nov 3 2004, 11:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5 @ Nov 3 2004, 11:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Please go on about 4th dimensional space stuff, I'd love to discuss it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The basic idea is that there are 4 dimentions, 3 spatial, and one temporal.
You are probably familiar with the distance formula in 3 dimensions: d^2 = x^2 + y^2 + x^2 in which x y and z are the differences in the x y and z coordinates of the two points. Lorentz geometry expands this to the concept of an <i>interval</i>. In 4 dimensional Lorentz geomerty, the interval between two points is d^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2*t^2 in which t is the difference in the times of the two points. The interesting thing is that this interval is constant between any two inertial reference frames, despite the fact that the speed of light is also constant between any two inertial reference frames.
This should explain the basics. There are articles on the internet for anything further that are much better than anything I could type up. Its been about a year since I've touched this material.
Here's a few links <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation_equations' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_trans...ation_equations</a> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval</a> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-x5+Nov 3 2004, 11:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5 @ Nov 3 2004, 11:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I do indeed understand what you are talking about. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Please go on.
I'm just trying to remind you that we can't assume that lightspeed is the fastest velocity until proven. Remember it only takes one exception or flaw in a theory to prove it wrong. That's all. I was just cautioning against using all/none statements. Sorry if I did it a bit harsh, I'm in a depressed and angry mood today. (snidely's insult didn't help either)
Please go on about 4th dimensional space stuff, I'd love to discuss it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Light speed is mathematically the fastest matter can travel before it reaches a point at which it is traveling in zero time (read: the object would perceive an instant transfer in its relevent state) we have no mathimatical model for a material mass travelling in negitive time, and thus mathematically light speed would be the speed asymtote which any material object can climb under physically achiveable circumstances (IOW: theoretically objects being propelled with an infinate ammount of energy over an infinate ammount of time could exceed lightspeed, but I challange to to find either an infinate ammount of energy or an infinate amount of time.
Seed Germination [Well, sorry, but I just dug through my old bio text book, and also tried to get into the online notes of my class last year, but I can wing this question.] Seed germinate upwards because of a little organelle specific cells in the seeds which basically act as an inner ear, determining which direction the seed is. Then, these cells control the orientation of the growth causing the seed to grow upwards. The organelles are heavier than the rest of the cell, so they sink to the bottom. It's pretty cool actually, in my opinion at least.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 3 2004, 11:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 3 2004, 11:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This should explain the basics. There are articles on the internet for anything further that are much better than anything I could type up. Its been about a year since I've touched this material.
Here's a few links <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation_equations' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_trans...ation_equations</a> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval</a> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow! The wikipedia has amazed me one again! Thank you for pointing out those information sources to me.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Nov 3 2004, 11:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Nov 3 2004, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Light speed is mathematically the fastest matter can travel before it reaches a point at which it is traveling in zero time (read: the object would perceive an instant transfer in its relevent state) we have no mathimatical model for a material mass travelling in negitive time, and thus mathematically light speed would be the speed asymtote which any material object can climb under physically achiveable circumstances <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To elaborate on this, if an object were to travel faster than light than it is possible that causal order could be reversed. With a bullet travelling faster than light, you could kill someone with it before you fired the shot. Causality is an essential assumption of most of science, so even on philosophical grounds, faster than light speeds are impossible.
Fun topic, i like <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
antimatter has negative mass, but doesnt move faster than light because negative-energy doesnt exist. it would be propelled by positive energy just the same as positive matter,
The only way we kno to go faster than light would require being immune to gravity, and therefore skipping the rim of a black hole, as light travels down the gravity well, if you were to traverse the 3d space in a straight direction you would be skipping along faster than the light is. youre not relly going fster than light, youre slowing down SOME light, so its a bit cheating, but the prospect is that you would skip forward in time relative to the other energy. however, since it has fallen into a black hole, anything relative to it is meaningless. also, to be immune to gravity you would have to have zero momentum (gravity affects momentum, which photons DO have, as they DO bend around large gravity wells).
about Life. I think life is nothing but a recurring organizational pattern, for anything that self propagates in a void will become dominant. as bacteria formed from molecules that could self propagate, atoms formed from the hot subatomic soup fired off from the big bang, and now the universe is made up of hydrogen. As anything that self propagates creates ever-larger structures of itself, in the largest possible space in the largest possible way. what way is that? a tetrahedron. the most precise way to fill three dimensional space with the most simple material is with a figure containing three right angled unit blocks. This is why everything is made of independant threes. matter/antimatter/energy, x/y/z, and the formation of water molecules into triominos.
I feel like im making no sense, this isnt the sort of topic i can explain in a forum post =/ I'll try to answer any questions though.
Only thing I have to add is the chemical that causes the alteration of a plant's growth direction is <i>Auxin</i>.
Additionally, there was an extended arguement on the theories of time travel about a month ago. (Hawkeye, a Civilian, some others and I argued extensively.)
moultano, x5, your knowledge of physics is impressive. Go on. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Querry: I was under the impression that light had 0 rest mass, yet is massive. Anything that has energy must have mass. :S
Source of discussion: Relativistic mass equations say that you cannot travel *at* the speed of light, but you can exceed it. I'll have to dig them out of textbooks, but that was my feeling.
Coil, I also liked the explanation of genetics. It's another thing that worries me (as a confirmed Christian,) about the truths of Genesis.
Edit: Zel, Antimatter is yet to be created. No? Although Dark-matter has evidence for it. (<i>"Physics of Star Trek"</i> goes into this in detail, I hear. (No, I'm not a Treker))
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 4 2004, 12:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 4 2004, 12:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To elaborate on this, if an object were to travel faster than light than it is possible that causal order could be reversed. With a bullet travelling faster than light, you could kill someone with it before you fired the shot. Causality is an essential assumption of most of science, so even on philosophical grounds, faster than light speeds are impossible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I've also heard that the electromagnetic spectrum would be flipped. The consquences of arriving before you left is intriguing but seems unlikely for the same reason why going back in time is. In that case being that time is and abstract-abstract, nothing more than how we percieve change. The only way how I see time travel possible is by going to a continium where the changes haven't happened yet. And the instant you get in the continium you split it. That's not a problem as infinity + 1 = infinity but the implications are intersting. Furthermore how you'd go to the same universe in a continium before another is beyond anything I can even imagine. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Querry: I was under the impression that light had 0 rest mass, yet is massive. Anything that has energy must have mass. :S<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was under the impression that this is waht the famous E=MC^2 describes. Energy (in some weird format... either dynes or joules)=(mass)(speed of light^2)
Meaning, an amount of energy has MASS. a VERY VERY small mass, but a mass none-the-less. mass (kg) * (m/s)^2 = Kg*m/second... i think. Dynes figure into there somewhere, which are gram*m/second or something like that. [EDIT]Actually, it may not mean that energy <i>HAS</i> mass, but rather it can be converted into mass. My bad[/EDIt]
Think about it. It takes 4.18joules to heat 1ml of water by 1degree C.
4.18J=(m)(3x10^10)^2 m=4.64x10^-21 Kg. That's small. Really small.
The implications are really cool from this. That much mass gives that much energy. That means that, given the calculations, it would take about 100 <i>cells</i> in your human body to be "converted" with 100% efficentcy to sustain your body for a whole <i>day</i>.
Like really really interesting yet useless info like this? Read "Of Time and Space and Other Things" by Issac Asimov. It's 200 pages of goodness, mostly about the lunar vs. solar calendars throughout the ages, but it covers lots of measurements of "stuff."
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-BlueNovember+Nov 4 2004, 12:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BlueNovember @ Nov 4 2004, 12:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Querry: I was under the impression that light had 0 rest mass, yet is massive. Anything that has energy must have mass. :S <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not exactly. Mass and energy are intertwined in relativity, but something can have energy without having mass. The relationship works like this. E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 in which E is the energy, m is the mass, p is the momentum, and c is the speed of light. The term mc^2 is referred to as the rest energy of the object. It is basically equivalent to the mass of the object, because the speed of light is really just a conversion factor. Notice in this equation that if you set m =0 the equation reduces to E = pc This is the case for light. It has 0 mass (and thus 0 rest energy). It does however have momentum. This leads to the somewhat counterintuitive result that you can push things along with light due to conservation of momentum, even though it has no mass. This is the idea behind <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail' target='_blank'>Solar Sails</a>. If enough photons are consistently hitting you from the same direction, they can provide propulsion.
Edit: As an aside, if you set p=0 in that equation (an object that isn't moving) you get the famous E = mc^2.
Edit: Thought I'd add something else that will really blow your mind. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It is possible to measure distance in seconds and time in meters, because space and time are part of the same stuff. The speed of light is really just the conversion factor between the units of meters and seconds.
We have created small amoutns of antimatter in large supercolliders. By thwacking protons together (ionized hydrogen) at high enough speeds it is easy to create anti-protons. We can only make a few at a time by this procedure, and as soon as they contact natural matter they annihilate one another in a burst of pure energy (gamma rays). To store and move it therefore you have to contain it in a magnetic feild, not a jar of ny sort, but a large machine producing enough energetic feild to keep the antimatter stabilized without touching any natural matter.
positrons (anti-electrons) are created by the billions per second in the fusion reaction of the sun. Part of the chemical reaction going on creates anti electrons, which quickly annihilate on the nearby hydrogen atoms (its pretty dense in the core of a star) creating a gamma ray photon and the hydrogen atom is left electronless, in an ionized state, ready for the next fusion reaction.
Antimatter exists, and as it annihilates in pure energy, it is the fulfillment of E=mc^2, you DO get that much energy from it, and thats why antimatter explosions are so darn scary in sci-fi stories. in reality however, it is not a firey explosion, nor a world destroying catastrophe, the atoms annihilate one another in equal mass amounts, and create high energy photons. so one square inch of antimatter would eliminate one square inch of natural matter. however, it would release so much energy, this is why scifi stories use antimatter as starship energy. also, the US AirForce is researching this exact thing, a battery the size of a double-A could replace the whole booster system on the space shuttle. It's real, but a long way off. heres the story on that <a href='http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/04/1950217&tid=134' target='_blank'>http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid...1950217&tid=134</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: Thought I'd add something else that will really blow your mind. It is possible to measure distance in seconds and time in meters, because space and time are part of the same stuff. The speed of light is really just the conversion factor between the units of meters and seconds.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well... if you take any constant speed (say, 20m/s) then it's possible to convert time into meters and space into time. It's just the distance it travels over time.
I'm pretty sure you're just implying that if i said "three seconds away" and let's say light is "20m/s" then I mean 60meters away.
Ok, given the posts made whilst I was writing, I withdraw this post. Let me fill it with something else...
Zel, I'm familiar with the various combinations of anti-particles you describe, however are these true anti-mass? I think I may have two alternate definations (mentally) for the same thing and they just haven't clicked. Yeah that's probably it. :$
I never knew the sun gave off positrons though. :o
Darn BlueNovember, i was about to correct you when you edited the mistake <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Zel+Nov 4 2004, 01:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zel @ Nov 4 2004, 01:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Darn BlueNovember, i was about to correct you when you edited the mistake <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's been a long day. Not to sure if there was as mistake tbh. PM me. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Something about the number of joules required to heat water versus the energy given off by converting some amount of matter into energy. It isn't important.
For anti-mass, you're right, it is simply an odd definition. It's quite the same as normal mass, because these particles cannot be placed upon a scale made from antimatter; we say they may have anti-mass, but it is realized and treated exactly as normal mass. For example, F=|m|a instead of F=ma , the difference is largely in semantics and philosophy.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-404NotFound+Nov 4 2004, 01:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Nov 4 2004, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: Thought I'd add something else that will really blow your mind. It is possible to measure distance in seconds and time in meters, because space and time are part of the same stuff. The speed of light is really just the conversion factor between the units of meters and seconds.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well... if you take any constant speed (say, 20m/s) then it's possible to convert time into meters and space into time. It's just the distance it travels over time.
I'm pretty sure you're just implying that if i said "three seconds away" and let's say light is "20m/s" then I mean 60meters away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I was making a stronger statement. Seconds can be considered a unit of distance, because time and space are part of the same stuff. In different reference frames, time and space can be converted into one another.
Here's a good analogy for you. Suppose you have a line segment in the x y plane. This line segment has a certain length, and certain x and y values. However, if you rotate that segment around the origin, it will still have the same length but the x and y values will change. You could say that some of the x was converted into some of the y, or vice versa. In that sense, the x and y dimensions are equivalent.
Space and time work in a similar way using Lorentz geometry. When you change reference frames, some of the interval that was considered time before, could now be considered space.
Let me know if its not clear what I mean so I can explain it in more depth.
moultano, I'd love to read more about that, ive never heard anything of the sort. I pride myself on knowledge of such cosmological things and would like to see your references. How can time and space be equivalent when space is a spacial dimension (traversable in two directions each dimension) and time is nonspacial (it is a property of matter, traversable in only one direction, with theoretical changes in velocity of forward movement in time)
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Zel+Nov 4 2004, 05:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zel @ Nov 4 2004, 05:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> moultano, I'd love to read more about that, ive never heard anything of the sort. I pride myself on knowledge of such cosmological things and would like to see your references. How can time and space be equivalent when space is a spacial dimension (traversable in two directions each dimension) and time is nonspacial (it is a property of matter, traversable in only one direction, with theoretical changes in velocity of forward movement in time) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's too strong of a statement to say that they are equivalent. The negative sign in the interval equation can't be removed, and it clearly differentiates time from the other dimensions. However, in different reference frames time and space are transformed into one another. This produces the effects that you have probably heard of, time dilation and space contraction.
Here's a wikipedia article. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval</a>
If I have the time tonight I'll type up a few of the classic thought experiments.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 4 2004, 06:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 4 2004, 06:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If I have the time tonight I'll type up a few of the classic thought experiments. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would enjoy that. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I dig the AP physics class I'm in, at least when we're talking about quantum theory/string theory and the building blocks of an atom. I have a few books myself that talks about this stuff. I think my favorite so far is talking about 11 dimensions, the relative implications, and how we would go about proving they exist if they really even exist (or the 26-dimension theory, that one makes me giggle).
Comments
...
I don't think we can go faster than light due to e = m (c squared). You'd have to have negative mass, IIRC. I may be wrong since I went to school years ago, and have since forgotten my entire education.
MAXINT is not infinity. It is defined as a particular integer value. If it's throwing you off, just consider random numbers from 1 to 10. There is a possibility that you will never, ever get a five, no matter how many numbers you choose. A rediculously small chance, but it exists.
The correct answer to the question, "will that code halt," is maybe. Because it is not in the set of <i>any</i> decidable languages, you can't solve it yourself, let alone a computer. There does not exist a true statement to compare this to, either.
And you can have leaks small enough to ooze liquids (or very small cells/cell debris), yet block red blood cells from passing through. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought we were talking about Maxint in terms of a real numbers scale, in which case there is no maxint, causing the maximum value for an integer to be infinate.
<a href='http://www.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell.htm' target='_blank'>Here</a> is a good (and easily understandable) explanation.
<i>A lightning strike supposedly generates twice as much power as the world's electricity power put together PER strike. If we had a rod connecting to power cells, why wouldn't it be possible to use this power to generate electricity for years on end?</i>
Don't confuse power with energy. What the above statement means is that, if all the energy in the lightning bolt was converted into useful energy, it could power the world for twice the amount of time the lightning bolt is active (ie: a few microseconds). Which doesn't work out to that much energy, really.
Capturing most of the energy in a lightning strike would be pretty hard. Most of the energy is used up ionising the air between the clouds and ground (it gets converted to light, heat, noise) so you would somehow have to run a wire from the clouds, another wire connected to the ground and you would have the 'terminals' of your battery. It would also be hard to either store or convert the electricity when it lasts for such a short time.
Having said all this, I did read that the energy in a supercell thunderstorm cloud is like a nuke going off every second. Quite impressive.
<i>Why can't we use geothermal energy?</i>
We do, but in most places it's too hard to get to with our present engineering. So you mostly get geothermal plants in volcanic areas where the hot rocks are not so deep underground. Even there its cheaper to just burn fossil fuels which is the real (boring) answer.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's interesting. I don't know if random numbers have been properly explored as an aspect of computing (since a turing machine certainly can't create one)
<!--QuoteBegin-Merkaba+Nov 3 2004, 04:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Merkaba @ Nov 3 2004, 04:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Re: Speed of light
Is the speed of light deemed the fastest it's possible to go because light itself travels as fast as it can go? Otherwise, why is it not plausible to go faster than the speed of light? Admittedly your vision would probably go a bit askew (Read: pear shaped) but I don't see why it's not <i>technically</i> possible otherwise.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Light has 0 mass, so yes, the speed that it can go is the fastest anything can go, unless of course you come up with a way to have negative mass. That speed limit is a fundamental property of the geometry of 4 dimentional space. It is impossible for an object to move faster than that, because it is impossible for velocities that are faster than that to exist. Its a property of the geometry.
You sure about that? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> (it isn't proven, in fact light has some properties like a particle of matter, better read up on your quantum physics and avoid using those all/no statements which are almost always wrong)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the speed that it can go is the fastest anything can go,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So says conventional physics, but there are several things that happen differently at the atomic level or astronomical level.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->unless of course you come up with a way to have negative mass.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you're just being silly <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That speed limit is a fundamental property of the geometry of 4 dimentional space. It is impossible for an object to move faster than that, because it is impossible for velocities that are faster than that to exist. Its a property of the geometry.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Velocity != geometry
And besides I'd love to critique your mathematical proof for that theory of yours.
This is relativity, I know what I'm talking about. If I had the patience for lab classes I'd be a physics minor.
Photons have zero mass. Their rest energy is zero. This is known. Relativity reduces all of these things down to the properties of 4 dimensional Lorentz geometry. Do you know what you are talking about and am I just explaining this poorly or do you have any idea at all?
This is relativity, I know what I'm talking about. If I had the patience for lab classes I'd be a physics minor.
Photons have zero mass. Their rest energy is zero. This is known. Relativity reduces all of these things down to the properties of 4 dimensional Lorentz geometry. Do you know what you are talking about and am I just explaining this poorly or do you have any idea at all? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say about half of the people in this forum truely understand what they are talking about
I'm just trying to remind you that we can't assume that lightspeed is the fastest velocity until proven. Remember it only takes one exception or flaw in a theory to prove it wrong. That's all. I was just cautioning against using all/none statements. Sorry if I did it a bit harsh, I'm in a depressed and angry mood today. (snidely's insult didn't help either)
Please go on about 4th dimensional space stuff, I'd love to discuss it.
The basic idea is that there are 4 dimentions, 3 spatial, and one temporal.
You are probably familiar with the distance formula in 3 dimensions: d^2 = x^2 + y^2 + x^2 in which x y and z are the differences in the x y and z coordinates of the two points. Lorentz geometry expands this to the concept of an <i>interval</i>. In 4 dimensional Lorentz geomerty, the interval between two points is d^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2*t^2 in which t is the difference in the times of the two points. The interesting thing is that this interval is constant between any two inertial reference frames, despite the fact that the speed of light is also constant between any two inertial reference frames.
This should explain the basics. There are articles on the internet for anything further that are much better than anything I could type up. Its been about a year since I've touched this material.
Here's a few links
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation_equations' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_trans...ation_equations</a>
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval</a>
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity</a>
I'm just trying to remind you that we can't assume that lightspeed is the fastest velocity until proven. Remember it only takes one exception or flaw in a theory to prove it wrong. That's all. I was just cautioning against using all/none statements. Sorry if I did it a bit harsh, I'm in a depressed and angry mood today. (snidely's insult didn't help either)
Please go on about 4th dimensional space stuff, I'd love to discuss it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Light speed is mathematically the fastest matter can travel before it reaches a point at which it is traveling in zero time (read: the object would perceive an instant transfer in its relevent state) we have no mathimatical model for a material mass travelling in negitive time, and thus mathematically light speed would be the speed asymtote which any material object can climb under physically achiveable circumstances (IOW: theoretically objects being propelled with an infinate ammount of energy over an infinate ammount of time could exceed lightspeed, but I challange to to find either an infinate ammount of energy or an infinate amount of time.
Seed Germination
[Well, sorry, but I just dug through my old bio text book, and also tried to get into the online notes of my class last year, but I can wing this question.]
Seed germinate upwards because of a little organelle specific cells in the seeds which basically act as an inner ear, determining which direction the seed is. Then, these cells control the orientation of the growth causing the seed to grow upwards. The organelles are heavier than the rest of the cell, so they sink to the bottom. It's pretty cool actually, in my opinion at least.
Here's a few links
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation_equations' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_trans...ation_equations</a>
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval</a>
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow! The wikipedia has amazed me one again! Thank you for pointing out those information sources to me.
To elaborate on this, if an object were to travel faster than light than it is possible that causal order could be reversed. With a bullet travelling faster than light, you could kill someone with it before you fired the shot. Causality is an essential assumption of most of science, so even on philosophical grounds, faster than light speeds are impossible.
antimatter has negative mass, but doesnt move faster than light because negative-energy doesnt exist. it would be propelled by positive energy just the same as positive matter,
The only way we kno to go faster than light would require being immune to gravity, and therefore skipping the rim of a black hole, as light travels down the gravity well, if you were to traverse the 3d space in a straight direction you would be skipping along faster than the light is. youre not relly going fster than light, youre slowing down SOME light, so its a bit cheating, but the prospect is that you would skip forward in time relative to the other energy. however, since it has fallen into a black hole, anything relative to it is meaningless. also, to be immune to gravity you would have to have zero momentum (gravity affects momentum, which photons DO have, as they DO bend around large gravity wells).
about Life. I think life is nothing but a recurring organizational pattern, for anything that self propagates in a void will become dominant. as bacteria formed from molecules that could self propagate, atoms formed from the hot subatomic soup fired off from the big bang, and now the universe is made up of hydrogen. As anything that self propagates creates ever-larger structures of itself, in the largest possible space in the largest possible way. what way is that? a tetrahedron. the most precise way to fill three dimensional space with the most simple material is with a figure containing three right angled unit blocks. This is why everything is made of independant threes. matter/antimatter/energy, x/y/z, and the formation of water molecules into triominos.
I feel like im making no sense, this isnt the sort of topic i can explain in a forum post =/ I'll try to answer any questions though.
Only thing I have to add is the chemical that causes the alteration of a plant's growth direction is <i>Auxin</i>.
Additionally, there was an extended arguement on the theories of time travel about a month ago. (Hawkeye, a Civilian, some others and I argued extensively.)
moultano, x5, your knowledge of physics is impressive. Go on. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Querry: I was under the impression that light had 0 rest mass, yet is massive. Anything that has energy must have mass. :S
Source of discussion: Relativistic mass equations say that you cannot travel *at* the speed of light, but you can exceed it. I'll have to dig them out of textbooks, but that was my feeling.
Coil, I also liked the explanation of genetics. It's another thing that worries me (as a confirmed Christian,) about the truths of Genesis.
Keep going guys. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit: Zel, Antimatter is yet to be created. No? Although Dark-matter has evidence for it. (<i>"Physics of Star Trek"</i> goes into this in detail, I hear. (No, I'm not a Treker))
I've also heard that the electromagnetic spectrum would be flipped. The consquences of arriving before you left is intriguing but seems unlikely for the same reason why going back in time is. In that case being that time is and abstract-abstract, nothing more than how we percieve change. The only way how I see time travel possible is by going to a continium where the changes haven't happened yet. And the instant you get in the continium you split it. That's not a problem as infinity + 1 = infinity but the implications are intersting. Furthermore how you'd go to the same universe in a continium before another is beyond anything I can even imagine. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I was under the impression that this is waht the famous E=MC^2 describes. Energy (in some weird format... either dynes or joules)=(mass)(speed of light^2)
Meaning, an amount of energy has MASS. a VERY VERY small mass, but a mass none-the-less. mass (kg) * (m/s)^2 = Kg*m/second... i think. Dynes figure into there somewhere, which are gram*m/second or something like that.
[EDIT]Actually, it may not mean that energy <i>HAS</i> mass, but rather it can be converted into mass. My bad[/EDIt]
Think about it. It takes 4.18joules to heat 1ml of water by 1degree C.
4.18J=(m)(3x10^10)^2
m=4.64x10^-21 Kg. That's small. Really small.
The implications are really cool from this. That much mass gives that much energy. That means that, given the calculations, it would take about 100 <i>cells</i> in your human body to be "converted" with 100% efficentcy to sustain your body for a whole <i>day</i>.
Like really really interesting yet useless info like this? Read "Of Time and Space and Other Things" by Issac Asimov. It's 200 pages of goodness, mostly about the lunar vs. solar calendars throughout the ages, but it covers lots of measurements of "stuff."
Not exactly. Mass and energy are intertwined in relativity, but something can have energy without having mass. The relationship works like this.
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
in which E is the energy, m is the mass, p is the momentum, and c is the speed of light. The term mc^2 is referred to as the rest energy of the object. It is basically equivalent to the mass of the object, because the speed of light is really just a conversion factor. Notice in this equation that if you set m =0 the equation reduces to
E = pc
This is the case for light. It has 0 mass (and thus 0 rest energy). It does however have momentum. This leads to the somewhat counterintuitive result that you can push things along with light due to conservation of momentum, even though it has no mass. This is the idea behind <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail' target='_blank'>Solar Sails</a>. If enough photons are consistently hitting you from the same direction, they can provide propulsion.
Edit: As an aside, if you set p=0 in that equation (an object that isn't moving) you get the famous E = mc^2.
Edit: Thought I'd add something else that will really blow your mind. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It is possible to measure distance in seconds and time in meters, because space and time are part of the same stuff. The speed of light is really just the conversion factor between the units of meters and seconds.
positrons (anti-electrons) are created by the billions per second in the fusion reaction of the sun. Part of the chemical reaction going on creates anti electrons, which quickly annihilate on the nearby hydrogen atoms (its pretty dense in the core of a star) creating a gamma ray photon and the hydrogen atom is left electronless, in an ionized state, ready for the next fusion reaction.
Antimatter exists, and as it annihilates in pure energy, it is the fulfillment of E=mc^2, you DO get that much energy from it, and thats why antimatter explosions are so darn scary in sci-fi stories. in reality however, it is not a firey explosion, nor a world destroying catastrophe, the atoms annihilate one another in equal mass amounts, and create high energy photons. so one square inch of antimatter would eliminate one square inch of natural matter. however, it would release so much energy, this is why scifi stories use antimatter as starship energy. also, the US AirForce is researching this exact thing, a battery the size of a double-A could replace the whole booster system on the space shuttle. It's real, but a long way off. heres the story on that <a href='http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/04/1950217&tid=134' target='_blank'>http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid...1950217&tid=134</a>
Well... if you take any constant speed (say, 20m/s) then it's possible to convert time into meters and space into time. It's just the distance it travels over time.
I'm pretty sure you're just implying that if i said "three seconds away" and let's say light is "20m/s" then I mean 60meters away.
Zel, I'm familiar with the various combinations of anti-particles you describe, however are these true anti-mass? I think I may have two alternate definations (mentally) for the same thing and they just haven't clicked.
Yeah that's probably it. :$
I never knew the sun gave off positrons though. :o
It's been a long day. Not to sure if there was as mistake tbh. PM me. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
For anti-mass, you're right, it is simply an odd definition. It's quite the same as normal mass, because these particles cannot be placed upon a scale made from antimatter; we say they may have anti-mass, but it is realized and treated exactly as normal mass. For example, F=|m|a instead of F=ma , the difference is largely in semantics and philosophy.
edit:typo
It is saying energy and mass are equivalent through a constant conversion factor. In other words, mass is frozen energy. Like steam vs ice.
This implies teleportation is possible as well as a number of equally impressive things.
Of course it is possible e != mc^2. I won't say it is possible, though that's what that formula implies.
Well... if you take any constant speed (say, 20m/s) then it's possible to convert time into meters and space into time. It's just the distance it travels over time.
I'm pretty sure you're just implying that if i said "three seconds away" and let's say light is "20m/s" then I mean 60meters away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I was making a stronger statement. Seconds can be considered a unit of distance, because time and space are part of the same stuff. In different reference frames, time and space can be converted into one another.
Here's a good analogy for you. Suppose you have a line segment in the x y plane. This line segment has a certain length, and certain x and y values. However, if you rotate that segment around the origin, it will still have the same length but the x and y values will change. You could say that some of the x was converted into some of the y, or vice versa. In that sense, the x and y dimensions are equivalent.
Space and time work in a similar way using Lorentz geometry. When you change reference frames, some of the interval that was considered time before, could now be considered space.
Let me know if its not clear what I mean so I can explain it in more depth.
It's too strong of a statement to say that they are equivalent. The negative sign in the interval equation can't be removed, and it clearly differentiates time from the other dimensions. However, in different reference frames time and space are transformed into one another. This produces the effects that you have probably heard of, time dilation and space contraction.
Here's a wikipedia article. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_interval</a>
If I have the time tonight I'll type up a few of the classic thought experiments.
I would enjoy that. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->