SCIENCE

One of the purposes of the hadron collider is to attempt to detect the graviton leaving the dimentions as the two particals collide

Originally posted by -DaGoN- Originally posted by TuNA FISh Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc where did you take your iq test a cracher jack box? lol its sincesless to even try to clue U in dude i like how you try to make everyone out to be mentally retarded.. it's like you honestly believe we are not on "your level". you are narcissistic Word.

Yes, a talking point's validity should be assessed based on it's content, not who wrote it.

Originally posted by ASHYTEBUBLExD Originally posted by HanFei Originally posted by TX2k7 consider everything u see, no matter how close u are to it u are merely seeing the light reflected off that object and with that in mind, u are not truly seeing what u are observing as it exists at that very moment, u are percieving it a fraction of a second after that moment (the time the light takes to reflect off the object and be percieved by u, including the fraction of a second ur brain takes to process the information from ur eyes and send an image back) btw....nice radioactive sybol on the topic syz :D hehehe Yes, in short, we are always seeing the past. Over the flat ocean we can see about 150 miles before the curvature of the earth prevents us from seeing further. Since the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,282 miles per second relative to anyone and everything, it takes light from one of the farthest objects you can see on earth ~.0008 secs to reach you. Thus, we are always seeing, as TX2k7 said, the past. Expand this to distances between us and the closest star, Proxima Centauri; and, the difference in time between when the event (light emission) happened and we see it becomes 4.2 light years. For practical purposes In everyday life, these statement of reality is not particularly helpful - only insightful. But then I could argue that im being less affected by time that you are, if we say time is relative, i can say im moving faster through time than you are therfore I WIN...

Yes, both our statements are true. If you increase velocity or gravitational strength on some object A, passage of time slows for A relative to some third party observer, B. However, for the observer in A or B, time appears to pass normally, as we are now. Yet, regaurdless of discrepancies in "the present," both A and B view events who's origins are in the past, as we covered earlier.    

Proven facts.

Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc you sure bout that?

Yes, for further reading, see time dilation.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm

I'm under the impression GPS receivers are an application of this..
From our perspective on earth, GPS satellites travel closer to the sped of light than we do. Therefore, time passes more slowly on the satellites Cesium atomic clock from our vantage point on earth. I'm fairly certain the GPS receiver accounts for this discrepency when doing delay of transmission arrival and triangulation calculations.

Originally posted by Aquaknot Originally posted by HanFei   Yes, both our statements are true. If you increase velocity or gravitational strength on some object A, passage of time slows for A relative to some third party observer, B. However, for the observer in A or B, time appears to pass normally, as we are now. Yet, regaurdless of discrepancies in "the present," both A and B view events who's origins are in the past, as we covered earlier.     Here's what stirs my pot:  Velocity affecting time relative to the mass in motion. I am standing on Earth at roughly 30 degrees north.  The rotational speed of the Earth at this latitude is approximately 898.5 MPH.  The object I am standing on is whizzing through space at roughly 66,660 MPH around the solar center.  The solar center resides in the Orion arm of the Milky Way Galaxy and is rocketing around the galactic core at about 492,126 MPH.  NASA estimates that the Milky Way Galaxy is moving through the Universe at approximately 671,081 MPH. With all that twist & shout, why don't I fall out of bed? Is my life longer or shorter than a life form on an obeject fixed in the ether of space? If I travel back in time, could I miss the mark and find myself floating in the void because I forgot to sharpen my pencil? If I lost a sock 6 hours ago, how far behind me is it? I need a snack-

Originally posted by Ether404 one more thing...if by theory, we travel faster than the speed of light, what should we call it?  after all by theory we would then begin traveling through time correct? "Faster than Light Speed?" i think we should call it..."Ether Speed"

Ha, very cool name!

Although information can not travel faster than light in a vacuum, particles can go faster than light in a medium. oh, snap! Ha. See cherenkov radiation for further reading.

HanFei - does radiation have specific gravity?  I know it's measured in Rads, but does it have weight?  Is it particles or something like the mystery meat in fast food chicken nuggets - origins and composition unknown?  That's been bugging me for some time.

Originally posted by Aquaknot HanFei - does radiation have specific gravity?  I know it's measured in Rads, but does it have weight?  Is it particles or something like the mystery meat in fast food chicken nuggets - origins and composition unknown?  That's been bugging me for some time.

Edit: short answer yes, mass of photon, neutron, electron or helium nucleus. However, it is I portent to note that as things approach c, like particles being released from fission, mass decreases. I know it's counter intuitive, I may have phrased it wrong, but the principle remains. /edit

Four types of radiation - all have specific mass amounts
- alpha radiation is the emission of the equivalent of a helium nucleus from an unstable isotope. Very damaging, highly ionizing, stopped by a few inches of air, specific weight known, isotope looses two neutrons and two protons.
- beta radiation is the emission of the equivalent of an electron from an unstable nucleus. Ionizing, stopped by paper, specific weight known, but position subject to quantum randomness.
- neutron - emission of generally 2-3 neutrons per fission or some in neuronic fusion processes (some fusion processes don't release neutrons), most damaging on a per particle basis, specific weight known, stopped with atoms that have a large cross section for absorbing neutrons (more probable to absorb than bounce off) like hydrogen in water or boron
- gamma - high every photon, ionizing, although this is the least damaging, there are generally far more of these hitting you, making them cumulatively more damaging.

All of these can damage DNA. As an aside, flight attendants have the highest rates of radiation exposure out of any profession. Sorry for the sloppy post.

Originally posted by HanFei Originally posted by Aquaknot HanFei - does radiation have specific gravity?  I know it's measured in Rads, but does it have weight?  Is it particles or something like the mystery meat in fast food chicken nuggets - origins and composition unknown?  That's been bugging me for some time. Edit: short answer yes, mass of photon, neutron, electron or helium nucleus. However, it is I portent to note that as things approach c, like particles being released from fission, mass decreases. I know it's counter intuitive, I may have phrased it wrong, but the principle remains. /edit Four types of radiation - all have specific mass amounts - alpha radiation is the emission of the equivalent of a helium nucleus from an unstable isotope. Very damaging, highly ionizing, stopped by a few inches of air, specific weight known, isotope looses two neutrons and two protons. - beta radiation is the emission of the equivalent of an electron from an unstable nucleus. Ionizing, stopped by paper, specific weight known, but position subject to quantum randomness. - neutron - emission of generally 2-3 neutrons per fission or some in neuronic fusion processes (some fusion processes don't release neutrons), most damaging on a per particle basis, specific weight known, stopped with atoms that have a large cross section for absorbing neutrons (more probable to absorb than bounce off) like hydrogen in water or boron - gamma - high every photon, ionizing, although this is the least damaging, there are generally far more of these hitting you, making them cumulatively more damaging. All of these can damage DNA. As an aside, flight attendants have the highest rates of radiation exposure out of any profession. Sorry for the sloppy post.

Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc where did you take your iq test a cracher jack box? lol its sincesless to even try to clue U in dude

Coming from a dude who has multiple errors in grammar and spelling in almost every post; and who is over forty years of age, while telling a guy who is more than half your elder, who's talking to you in a second language,stupid!!!  Who also makes pretty good points (they agree with mine, of course their good)!

syzygy, what you don't realize is that we know more about religion than you do... you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to physics.. you watch a couple of documentaries and you think you know the "truth"