Global Warming

[squirtyflower]

What's love got to do with it?

-- Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:06 pm --

BB85 is giving BBH stiff competition in the who can talk more nonsense stakes.

Dont mind me i just completly mind fucked myself

Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. In A Brief History of Time and elsewhere, Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame. Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless. This less-nuanced, but commonly repeated formulation has received criticisms from philosophers such as Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler.

Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang are likely to remain pure speculation.

It really isn't that hard to grasp. How does anyone measure time when they have nothing to measure?

Thank God one of the Popes intervened and gave us the Gregorian Calendar.

and fucked it up by having everything in the wrong place

 

[Skashion]

It really isn't that hard to grasp. How does anyone measure time when they have nothing to measure?

Thank God one of the Popes intervened and gave us the Gregorian Calendar.

I'm sure relativistic muons thank the Gregorian calendar for allowing them to live longer.

 

[pauldominic]

Dont mind me i just completly mind fucked myself

Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. In A Brief History of Time and elsewhere, Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame. Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless. This less-nuanced, but commonly repeated formulation has received criticisms from philosophers such as Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler.

Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang are likely to remain pure speculation.

It really isn't that hard to grasp. How does anyone measure time when they have nothing to measure?

Thank God one of the Popes intervened and gave us the Gregorian Calendar.

and fucked it up by having everything in the wrong place

Where would you like the meridian SF? I think coincidentally that Greenwich is about the best place on Earth given the way it disects Alaska from Kamchatka.

Anywhere else would have been a nightmare.

 

[Damocles]

I must have imagined:



So, yes, you did dismiss time dilation, which is proven, in favour of FTL which is theoretically impossible. It's utterly bizarre. What you failed to understand is that whilst time dilation at low fractions of c speeds is very small ("quantum leaps in time"). at very high fractions of c time dilation becomes extremely significant. As you reckon FTL travel is possible, travelling at any fraction of c is also possible. So you've constructed a self-defeating argument. Or, to simplify it, you fucked up.

Anything is possible if we can slow down the speed of light as this man will tell you ;-)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tompkins-Paperback-Canto-Roger-Penrose/dp/0521447712/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342209606&sr=8-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tompkins-Paperb ... 606&sr=8-1</a>

What do you mean by slowing down the speed of light? The speed of light slows down depending on the material/medium. When light enters a medium its velocity is equal to c/n where n is the refraction index, and c is the speed of light in vacuum. Light in water (n=1.333) moves slower than in vacuum ( n = 1)

If we have medium with a refraction index less than 1 then we can move faster than the speed of light in that medium. Too bad that such a thing does not exists.

The answer is obviously to flood space.

 

[pauldominic]

Dont mind me i just completly mind fucked myself

Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. In A Brief History of Time and elsewhere, Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame. Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless. This less-nuanced, but commonly repeated formulation has received criticisms from philosophers such as Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler.

Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang are likely to remain pure speculation.

It really isn't that hard to grasp. How does anyone measure time when they have nothing to measure?

Thank God one of the Popes intervened and gave us the Gregorian Calendar.

and fucked it up by having everything in the wrong place

Personally I think you could blame the British Empire for more having things in the wrong place :-p

 

[BulgarianPride]

Anything is possible if we can slow down the speed of light as this man will tell you ;-)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tompkins-Paperback-Canto-Roger-Penrose/dp/0521447712/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342209606&sr=8-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tompkins-Paperb ... 606&sr=8-1</a>

What do you mean by slowing down the speed of light? The speed of light slows down depending on the material/medium. When light enters a medium its velocity is equal to c/n where n is the refraction index, and c is the speed of light in vacuum. Light in water (n=1.333) moves slower than in vacuum ( n = 1)

If we have medium with a refraction index less than 1 then we can move faster than the speed of light in that medium. Too bad that such a thing does not exists.

The answer is obviously to flood space.

Thank god for global warming then. :)

 

[pauldominic]

Anything is possible if we can slow down the speed of light as this man will tell you ;-)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tompkins-Paperback-Canto-Roger-Penrose/dp/0521447712/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342209606&sr=8-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tompkins-Paperb ... 606&sr=8-1</a>

What do you mean by slowing down the speed of light? The speed of light slows down depending on the material/medium. When light enters a medium its velocity is equal to c/n where n is the refraction index, and c is the speed of light in vacuum. Light in water (n=1.333) moves slower than in vacuum ( n = 1)

If we have medium with a refraction index less than 1 then we can move faster than the speed of light in that medium. Too bad that such a thing does not exists.

The answer is obviously to flood space.

Yes but if we could do that, we would have a brand new set of fun challenges to keep ourselves busy.

A bit like when our magnetic poles are reversed.

-- Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:39 pm --

What do you mean by slowing down the speed of light? The speed of light slows down depending on the material/medium. When light enters a medium its velocity is equal to c/n where n is the refraction index, and c is the speed of light in vacuum. Light in water (n=1.333) moves slower than in vacuum ( n = 1)

If we have medium with a refraction index less than 1 then we can move faster than the speed of light in that medium. Too bad that such a thing does not exists.

The answer is obviously to flood space.

Thank god for global warming then. :)

Imagine being joined to Europe without the channel. <Shudder> ;-p

 

[BulgarianPride]

What do you mean by slowing down the speed of light? The speed of light slows down depending on the material/medium. When light enters a medium its velocity is equal to c/n where n is the refraction index, and c is the speed of light in vacuum. Light in water (n=1.333) moves slower than in vacuum ( n = 1)

If we have medium with a refraction index less than 1 then we can move faster than the speed of light in that medium. Too bad that such a thing does not exists.

The answer is obviously to flood space.

Yes but if we could do that, we would have a brand new set of fun challenges to keep ourselves busy.

A bit like when our magnetic poles are reversed.

-- Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:39 pm --

The answer is obviously to flood space.

Thank god for global warming then. :)

Imagine being joined to Europe without the channel. <Shudder> ;-p

Such as multiplying our already existing equations by -1? How will we cope :)

 

[pauldominic]

The answer is obviously to flood space.

Yes but if we could do that, we would have a brand new set of fun challenges to keep ourselves busy.

A bit like when our magnetic poles are reversed.

-- Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:39 pm --

Thank god for global warming then. :)

Imagine being joined to Europe without the channel. <Shudder> ;-p

Such as multiplying our already existing equations by -1? How will we cope :)

Depends whether you regard arithmetic as difficult.

The maths is easy but the engineering challenges are fun to contemplate.

BAE specialises in Vehicle Systems, so maybe Bulgaria could provide the Mission Systems.

 

[dazdon]

Candle In The Wind by Elton John always makes me cringe.