MS Jean is gone
Sort:
Does anyone have any guesses on what conspiracy theory the doomsdayer will suport once tommorow comes and goes?
Sep 25, 2011
0
#502
goldendog wrote:
corrijean wrote:
Isn't the world supposed to end today?
Tomorrow.
If that one doesn't work, October 21, 2011 is right around the corner.
Sep 25, 2011
0
#503
corrijean wrote:
dannyhume wrote:
Now are you really talking time travel or just "I'll be able to see events from the past by looking at its reflected light wherever it is, but I can't stop them from stepping on that prehistoric butterfly in the time of dinosaurs 5,000 years ago, when humans and dinosaurs first inhabited the earth".
I think Cystem was really talking about time travel.
There are lots of problems to work out in that area. Paradoxes, grammar, etc.
I really don't remember the details, but I think I recall some discussions/writings with respect to tachyons that the particles themselves, at least under certain conditions of creation, would have equal chances of proceeding either forward in time (at normal time rate, so no "travel") or backward in time. Thus, they have been used in various science fiction plots as methods of sending messages or information across time, but the messages can only be sent backwards. And until a society reaches the point where it has the technological ability to reliably detect the tachyons, obviously they can't receive any messages that might be getting sent back from a future point.
Fun stuff to play with. Another point about tachyons and other faster than light particles is that the speed of light is a barrier from both directions-- it is the speed c itself that is forbidden, when the equations would yield infinite energy. A faster than light particle can slow down to very close to the speed of light, but can never actually achieve that value, it just approaches c asymptotically from above like particles in our accelerators approach c asymptotically from the low side.
Sep 25, 2011
0
#504
TheGrobe wrote:
I'd think they'd have to be pretty damned sure before making a statement, indeed they reverified their findings many times over. Will be interesting to see if anyone can independently reproduce the result.
I wonder how many sets of equipment there are in the world which can replicate the experiment.
Sep 25, 2011
0
#505
I will make a point to ask my father about these findings, because, unlike any of you, and sorry but dont take it personally, but he is a particle physicist and worked for several decades at CERN. Will report back when done.
Sep 25, 2011
0
#506
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
corrijean wrote:
dannyhume wrote:
Now are you really talking time travel or just "I'll be able to see events from the past by looking at its reflected light wherever it is, but I can't stop them from stepping on that prehistoric butterfly in the time of dinosaurs 5,000 years ago, when humans and dinosaurs first inhabited the earth".
I think Cystem was really talking about time travel.
There are lots of problems to work out in that area. Paradoxes, grammar, etc.
I really don't remember the details, but I think I recall some discussions/writings with respect to tachyons that the particles themselves, at least under certain conditions of creation, would have equal chances of proceeding either forward in time (at normal time rate, so no "travel") or backward in time. Thus, they have been used in various science fiction plots as methods of sending messages or information across time, but the messages can only be sent backwards. And until a society reaches the point where it has the technological ability to reliably detect the tachyons, obviously they can't receive any messages that might be getting sent back from a future point.
Fun stuff to play with. Another point about tachyons and other faster than light particles is that the speed of light is a barrier from both directions-- it is the speed c itself that is forbidden, when the equations would yield infinite energy. A faster than light particle can slow down to very close to the speed of light, but can never actually achieve that value, it just approaches c asymptotically from above like particles in our accelerators approach c asymptotically from the low side.
It's definitely a fun subject to read/think about.
Sep 25, 2011
0
#508
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
I will make a point to ask my father about these findings, because, unlike any of you, and sorry but dont take it personally, but he is a particle physicist and worked for several decades at CERN. Will report back when done.
Awesome! It would be amazing to hear the inside scoop.
Sep 25, 2011
0
#510
checkmateibeatu wrote:
Oh, so now suddenly your personal attacks are a joke?
Of course not. My comments regarding you are absolutely serious and true. The bit about you having no humor has to do with the sum total of your forum presence.
...Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about now.
Sep 25, 2011
0
#512
corrijean wrote: Most readers get as far as the Future Semi-Conditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up:
Yeah, that's about where I bog down . . . 
Terry Pratchett must have weighed in on this conundrum somewhere or other.
Sep 25, 2011
0
#513
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
corrijean wrote: Most readers get as far as the Future Semi-Conditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up:
Yeah, that's about where I bog down . . .
Terry Pratchett must have weighed in on this conundrum somewhere or other.
I haven't read any of his books. They are on my wish list, though.
corrijean wrote:
dannyhume wrote:
Now are you really talking time travel or just "I'll be able to see events from the past by looking at its reflected light wherever it is, but I can't stop them from stepping on that prehistoric butterfly in the time of dinosaurs 5,000 years ago, when humans and dinosaurs first inhabited the earth".
I think Cystem was really talking about time travel.
There are lots of problems to work out in that area. Paradoxes, grammar, etc.
Yeah, the whole reason I want to travel back in time is to step on a bunch of butterflies. I don't see many other reasons to go back in time otherwise.
checkmateibeatu wrote:
...Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about now.
This guy....
ilikeflags wrote:
5,000 years?
Yes sinner, 5,000 years. Were you there? Didn't think so.
Sep 25, 2011
0
#519
I've got a couple of signed Douglas Adams books... they don't make them anymore though.