420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
First telescope by Michael Angelo - Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:34:55 EST ID:6SPuxxpR No.55682 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1443144895835.jpg -(728331B / 711.26KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 728331
Hello, I'm looking for some advice for a first time telescope buyer. I was thinking about buying the Celestron 76mm Firstscope as its not to expensive and if I find that if astrology is not for me it's not really a big loss. Any advice or other telescopes would be great thanks.
>>
Allan Sandage - Sat, 26 Sep 2015 04:08:14 EST ID:NCcXgNdu No.55686 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Dobsonians are going to be the best bang per buck. The larger the aperture, the more light gathering capability it will have. Plan to spend several thousand dollars for astrophotography minus the SLR or CCD to take pictures with. The mount is almost more important than the scope here. A heavy GOTO mount (equatorial pref) with tracking capability is important for taking long exposures although you can take many shorter exposure images and stack them in Photoshop. Store bought refractors are generally garbage. If you really want to go that route Explore Scientific makes some nice refractors. Newtonians are a different story. My nephew's other pop bought him a store bought Celestron Astromaster, and although the mount could blow over like a leaf, the optics on the scope were pretty good. Dobsonians are Newtonians on a lazy Susan like bottom mount with two forks. You can get a large aperture here for comparatively very little cash. The only downside is that it doesn't really lock in place. Besides refractors and newtonians, there are catadioptric cassegrains. These are reflectors like the newtonian, but they are compact and expensive.

tldr: the AstroMaster 114EQ is $200 at opticsplanet.com
Eyepieces cost $50 dollars. Don't start off with a scope that costs the same as an eyepiece.


simply thowed by sure - Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:14:31 EST ID:j+4cQgXm No.55674 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1442376871693.jpg -(396674B / 387.38KB, 1280x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 396674
a birthday will come


420Sagans by Joseph Taylor Jr. - Wed, 09 Sep 2015 10:01:09 EST ID:1BegxnY+ No.55664 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1441807269900.png -(385493B / 376.46KB, 539x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 385493
Vote for naming the 51 pegasi star 'Carl' and it's 51 pegasi b planet 'Dot'

In honor of Carl Sagan

It's a bit further down on the page



http://nameexoworlds.iau.org/systems/114


Star Gazers by Giuseppe Piazzi - Wed, 02 Sep 2015 04:30:58 EST ID:NCcXgNdu No.55650 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1441182658167.jpg -(447181B / 436.70KB, 1600x1001) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 447181
Any other star gazers out there with telescopes? How far do you have to drive to get to a Bortle scale 2 environment? White being 9 Black being 1.

http://darksitefinder.com/maps/unitedstates-8color.html
>>
Charles Bolton - Thu, 03 Sep 2015 02:43:21 EST ID:lHGvTKQL No.55651 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55650
I just have to drive for about 25-30 minutes west on I-70 to get to a Level 1 area out in the middle of Nowhere, KS. There's even some small towns and farming communities nearby where you could get some gas and snacks.

One of the perks of Kansas I suppose.
>>
Jacob Kapteyn - Sun, 06 Sep 2015 06:20:10 EST ID:NCcXgNdu No.55655 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My astronomy club has a dark site, but I have to drive 2 hours to get to it. They have a bunch of concrete slabs where you can set up and they're wired for electricity if you need to power servos on your mount. Some people have their own mini domes set up and there's a small building with a 16" scope and dome. I wish I lived closer to the sticks so I didn't have to drive so far to get a good view of nebula. My dad is originally from Nowhere, KS. I drive through there to pay respect to ghosts occasionally. I wouldn't mind buying a bunch of land and retiring there when I get old.


orbiter 2010 by James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Thu, 20 Aug 2015 05:01:27 EST ID:yA35CPLh No.55604 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1440061287082.png -(741213B / 723.84KB, 870x636) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 741213
Inb4 telling me to post this on /vg/. It's a simulator not a video game. It's serious bzns and no fun is allowed. Besides I've posted it there before and no one there is cool enough to go to be interested in it.

Any one here ever try this out? I got pretty into it a while back. I've used various Delta glider models to launch from cape Canaveral, dock at the iss and then land on the moon at the fictional moon base. I've even made the trip home, but I can't re enter the atmosphere with out computer assistance. I either explode or bounce off the atmosphere every time.

I cant get my head around planning interplanetary trips. The MFD is too obtuse of a tool for me to plan that sort of trip. I wish there was kerbal maneuver node mod that let me visualize the trajectory vissualy with a 3d image rather than a 2d circle on a plane and some numbers.

I haven't tried it in a while and my gaming pc is dead, my lap top wont handle it. I recomend every one check it out as it's free.
10 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:43:32 EST ID:yA35CPLh No.55615 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55614
I cant remember the ship i used that had a mostly w Orrin 3d compo. You guys know a good one that dosent having me switching between 2d and 3d cockpits?
>>
Henry Russell - Sun, 23 Aug 2015 20:14:37 EST ID:P+fSJ1RL No.55616 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55612
Kind of but not really. Naal fights happen at 2d movement options where as space has 3d of movement available during engagements. Take orbit inclination into account and time your approach just right and you can approach any enemy form any direction. Almost. Timing and starting positions for intercept burns highly dictate how and when you engage targets. Not to mention you can use those 6 major directions, a combination of 360 degree lateral and vertical to your perspective, to dodge incoming fire. Though you may be fighting in large space ships you are still going super fast.

In some ways, yeah naval combat but in space, many of the principles are the same once the shells start flying or even before as both fleets race to lock targets first. There is just a little extra to consider.
>>
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Sun, 23 Aug 2015 21:05:00 EST ID:yA35CPLh No.55617 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55615
3d cockpit. My phones auto correct has been taking some creative liberties lately.
>>
Maximilian Wolf - Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:43:59 EST ID:wl5w5KO5 No.55645 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1440708239585.png -(1299842B / 1.24MB, 1858x802) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55614
http://www.orbithangar.com/download.php?ID=6584


I also made an RCMP skin and Hapeg-Loyd cargo transport skin for it too.

But this one I replaced the radiator with solar panels and did up the ings too, which also kinda work as a good heat sheild under it to.
>>
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Tue, 01 Sep 2015 01:49:39 EST ID:yA35CPLh No.55649 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55645
noice skin!


Math problem by Roger Penrose - Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:29:27 EST ID:vUNowU0Q No.54441 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1411756167954.png -(17766B / 17.35KB, 640x558) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 17766
Anyone want to help me out with this problem? I'm new to astronomy/physics and I haven't the faintest.
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Edwin Hubble - Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:37:01 EST ID:v2I6+0VG No.55457 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55454
Please don't necrobump old threads.
>>
Edward Pickering - Sun, 05 Jul 2015 07:31:07 EST ID:sVia2s64 No.55471 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54451
>>54453
actually it won't, because of uncertainty principle you can't make it stand perfectly still perfectly at the top
>>
Paul Goldsmith - Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:11:43 EST ID:euFuFwSC No.55558 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54441

> A mass is dropped directly on top of a half circle. As it rolls of the side...

Top lel
>>
Edwin Salpeter - Mon, 31 Aug 2015 01:06:20 EST ID:OMGzRHpD No.55646 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1440997580737.jpg -(163342B / 159.51KB, 483x572) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
is mass M a sphere or a cylinder? that changes the moment of inertia and the angular momentum of mass M. you said no friction but it's rolling so I'm lead to believe we are operating under the rolling-without-slipping regime (translational speed 'v' = radius of the mass M 'r' x 'omega', the angular velocity).

set up a force diagram for the mass at location X. the weight force 'mg' points straight down, we'll split into components in a moment. The normal force 'N' of the hemisphere on mass M points radially outward (in this case north-east). We'll be solving for the condition where N --> 0 (i.e., it juuust loses contact with the hemisphere)

cont.
>>
Edwin Salpeter - Mon, 31 Aug 2015 01:26:04 EST ID:OMGzRHpD No.55647 Ignore Report Quick Reply
now the weight force 'mg' can be split into components. one component points radially inward from X with value mgcos(theta). the other component points in the direction of mass M's velocity vector, tangent to the hemisphere or south-east, with value mgsin(theta). the first component balances with the normal force N and provides the centripetal acceleration for mass M. the second component does the accelerating of mass M down the hemisphere.

As >>54457 said, now do the conservation of energy. The translational kinetic energy 1/2mv^2 plus the rotational kinetic energy 1/2Iomega^2 will equal mg(R-y) where y is the height of location X. if you want it dimensionless (R=1) then R-y = 1-sin(theta). make the v = r x omega substitution and solve for v.

the inward radial componenet mgcos(theta) provides the centripetal acceleration v^2/R. So mgcos(theta) = mv^2/R ... too distracted to finish the rest but solve for the max v that the inward radial component can still provide a = v^2/R, then you can solve for the value of cos(theta)


frikkin relativity by John Wheeler - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 19:56:50 EST ID:Du35j2Lj No.55576 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438559810297.jpg -(295824B / 288.89KB, 1041x1041) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 295824
This has certainly been asked here before but please help me understand this.
A space ship travels around earth near lightspeed. I understand that velocity makes
time aboard the ship seem slower to a spectator on earth. And when the ship stopped moving the crew would have aged less then this spectator. But here's what i dont get. Why does the spectators time also seem to move slower to the crew on the ship? Wouldnt earth look like someone pressed fast forward? But lets say earth time seems to move slower, what happens when the ship slows down, does light from everything that happened come towards it like a flash?
I know i sound dumb, but that's okay.
>>
Henry Draper - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 22:38:40 EST ID:415JX8nG No.55577 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Why does the spectators time also seem to move slower to the crew on the ship?

It doesn't.
If you went 99.999...% the speed of light, you would actually distort time enough that you could travel around the universe in your relative lifetime, but here's the kick, if you traveled a billion light years in space, even though it only seemed like a year or whatever to you, the universe itself would of aged that much.

In order to travel near light speed, you would need some kind of super computer to figure out where your destination would actually be, if you go to something 1000 light years out, you would have to know were exactly that object would be in 1000 years, and when you arrived, it would be 1000 years later, 2000 round trip.

You could fly around the universe in a single year in your perspective, but when you got back home it would be billions of years later and our planet and the universe as it exists today would be long gone.
>>
Henry Draper - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 22:57:47 EST ID:415JX8nG No.55578 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Space and time are the same thing: the more space you travel, the more time has gone by, hence spacetime.
You can travel arbitrarily fast into the future
>>
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Mon, 03 Aug 2015 06:26:06 EST ID:v2I6+0VG No.55579 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That's not a dumb question at all. In special relativity, there is no preferred reference frame. If a rocket ship is travelling past the Earth, from the rockets perspective, the Earth is travelling past the rocket. So each will see the other's clocks as ticking slower to their own. This symmetry only holds for inertial reference frames though (no acceleration or deceleration). In your example, the space ship is constantly accelerating to move in a circle, and this destroys the symmetry. A more illustrative example is the one of the twin paradox. In the twin paradox, the ship leaves Earth and travels near the speed of light for a while and then turns around and returns to Earth. One twin is stays behind on Earth, and the other travels on the ship. The one who stayed behind on Earth has aged more than the voyager twin. It's a seeming paradox, because each twin witnesses the same thing: the other twin flies off at breakneck speed and returns at the same speed. The difference is that the space ship twin feels an acceleration. It's this acceleration that causes the jump in time - known as gravitational time dilation. This is an aspect of general relativity - beyond the scope of special relativity. So yeah, as soon as the ship starts accelerating or decelerating (as in your example), the events on Earth will play out in fast-forward from the ship's perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
>>
Grote Reuber - Mon, 03 Aug 2015 08:00:44 EST ID:Du35j2Lj No.55580 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55579

Thanks you! That clears my thoughts somewhat. It's still hard to grasp though.
>>
Fred Whipple - Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:42:03 EST ID:P+fSJ1RL No.55636 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55580
Don't worry. Our brains didn't evolve with innate knowledge of spacetime. Our universe has been what we see for a long long time. Recent science and tools have shown us more cogs of the universe we may never have other wise been made aware of.

That people here can even explain these things is incredible in itself. SpaceTime is no simple algebra that's for sure.


Night v/s day by Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:12:00 EST ID:Fk84gn/u No.55620 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1440468720383.jpg -(149638B / 146.13KB, 778x740) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 149638
Hey, so just as here on earth we've got longer days in the summer and longer nights in winter, is there a possibility for a planet, any earth-sized planet, to have a 6 hour day and, I don't know, a 40 hour long night?
>>
James Elliott - Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:47:54 EST ID:v2I6+0VG No.55622 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It depends entirely on the observer's location on a planet. So while the days may be longer and the nights shorter in the northern hemisphere, the situation will be reversed in the southern hemisphere. And it depends on your exact latitude (how far north or south you are). I can tell from the information provided to your hypothetical planet must have a 46 hour day (46 hours from one high noon to the next). This means that your planet is rotating slower than Earth, orbiting its sun faster, or both. Now for the 6:40 ratio, this depends mostly on the tilt of the axis about which the planet spins wrt its sun. If we knew the latitude where this day/night cycle occurs and at what time of the year it occurs, we could work out approximately the tilt of your planets axis. This is assuming that the length of a day is much shorter than the length of a year for your planet and that there is a great distance between your planet and its sun.

tl;dr Yes it's possible.
>>
James Elliott - Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:59:47 EST ID:v2I6+0VG No.55623 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55622
To elaborate, I know it's possible because this actually happen on Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night
>>
James Elliott - Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:01:32 EST ID:v2I6+0VG No.55624 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55623
happens*

Time for sleep...
>>
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Tue, 25 Aug 2015 05:31:05 EST ID:yA35CPLh No.55625 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This reminds me of Time cube for some reason.


Discuss... by The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Wed, 08 Jul 2015 20:14:54 EST ID:NjsLJs2P No.55484 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1436400894839.jpg -(114479B / 111.80KB, 854x687) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 114479
If time is equal to the distance that light travels, yet slows as one approaches the speed of light, does this not indicate that the speed of light is actually timeless?

If the speed of light is timeless, yet time is equal to the distance that light travels, does it not mean that the observer is responsible for the conception of distance in relation to light?

If time is equal to the distance that light travels, yet the speed of light is timeless, than space/time is actually light, as a measurement of time is actually a measurement of light.

If a measurement of time is actually a measurement of light, but the speed of light is timeless, does this not mean that to measure light is to create time?
18 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Joseph Lockyer - Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:46:30 EST ID:lHGvTKQL No.55589 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55585
Theoretically, if one could obtain a unicorn that could wish you to the nearest star system...

It doesn't even make sense to say "if one could go beyond the speed of light" and then ask if anything would happen because it's impossible to even answer that question.
>>
John Riccioli - Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:16:19 EST ID:j3JUC08k No.55590 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55586
>he thing you throw doesn't inherit your speed because of the water friction, it just goes at its own speed.

But it does, at first. It's the water friction that slows it down.
>>
Karl Jansky - Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:12:09 EST ID:YHjXylC8 No.55591 Ignore Report Quick Reply
11.jpg -(80085B / 78.21KB, 666x69) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55589
>Theoretically, if one could obtain a unicorn that could wish you to the nearest star system...
Even your imaginary unicorn would have difficulty, the top equation is time dilation at constant acceleration.
c= the speed of light, v=velocity. If v<c, you end up with an imaginary number.
>>
Bernard Burke - Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:36:58 EST ID:415JX8nG No.55592 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55484
It's relative.
If you yourself are traveling the speed of light, the closer you get to c, the slower time gets for you only, the rest of the universe starts to fast forward.

I guess a photon itself would be a timeless object, it has to interact with something to change.. but nothing quantum mechanical exists singularly, it exists in the context of the nature around it.
I guess in photon time, the universe is only a tiny fraction of a second old, if that is even an accurate description.
But the rest of the universe still matters.

The way I think of quantum mechanical objects is that they aren't like a ball or anything concrete like that.
A beam of electromagnetic energy is like a river.
You can run up to it with a glass, take a scoop out, and proclaim you have an electron.
You are measuring the location of that electron, as it is in your hand, but it's not going anywhere. You could then spill that electron out of the glass, back into the river. Although you don't know where that electron is anymore, you could figure out what it's speed is and where it is likely going based on the contours of the river, or getting out of the metaphor, the physical nature of what is going on around it.

Photons are only timeless to themselves, the rest of the universe collapses any notion of them existing in a timeless place.
If light didn't exist in time, I imagine, if the universe was able to form in the first place, it would just look like a big clump of white noise
>>
Fritz Zwicky - Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:25:39 EST ID:BF8zYeiD No.55595 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55592
It sounds like you have a pretty decent understanding of what you're talking about, and you're good at communicating those ideas understandably.


The Universe and Your Significance by Edward Pickering - Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:42:34 EST ID:7UdqYDqD No.54926 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1421880154554.jpg -(416926B / 407.15KB, 2560x1440) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 416926
I've noticed this a lot when people take about outer space and the universe they always like to mention how "insignificant" it makes them feel.
"Yeah man space, wow, you know it really puts my life into perspective; how insignificant we are in the grander scheme of things."

This is my opinion but I think that's such a belittling thing to say its also unsettling how common it is a thing to say when talking about the universe.

Granted the universe is huge, and in comparison us tiny humans are very very tiny. Doesn't make us insignificant though, or our lives meaningless.
You are the most significant person in your life, because without you, your life wouldn't exist. Who cares if you don't become famous or invent something that changes the world, you are the universe experiencing itself through your life, defining it with every thought, action, emotion and experience you have.

Sure you are a tiny droplet in an ocean of water, however what is an ocean but a multitude of droplets?
41 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Tadashi Nakajima - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 22:54:40 EST ID:7UdqYDqD No.55018 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55016

I believe the whole point of this is about the journey not the destination. I also believe you cannot have nothing, because you need something to experience nothing to know nothing is (or isn't) there. All there is is consciousness, and when we die from these lives of our consciousness will continue for eternity. This universe may also one day go cold but still consciousness will always be.
>>
Tadashi Nakajima - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 23:00:48 EST ID:7UdqYDqD No.55019 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55016

What you say also defies the first law of thermodynamics. Which is a weak argument because that "law" is just some physics rule we humans made up to help us understand something we didn't know anything about not too long ago - our universe. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. Perhaps if the universe does go cold and all the matter decays into its original form, consciousness, that's when the whole process of the big bang starts over again. When there are no more potential situations to happen because there are no more bits of matter, a state of pure consciousness. The creator, God, whatever you wanna call it.

But ya, we're significant because we're those bits of matter being experienced by God through our eyes, defining itself to itself
>>
Gerard Kuiper - Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:00:43 EST ID:KSSVR3HT No.55021 Ignore Report Quick Reply
We can compare for significance if we want. Compared to a rock im significant, I think. But we dont know what is actually significant, because we dont know what the fuck is going on.
I certainly dont see any reason to believe that all of this is good or bad, significant or not, either way.
>>
Terror Incognito - Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:22:25 EST ID:7DU4fAaH No.55056 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1424463745712.jpg -(16755B / 16.36KB, 375x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>54926

The fact that we're alive right now, able to experience and observe all that is in the universe makes us the most significant part of it, regardless of how small we appear to be on a specific scale of perception.
>>
William de Sitter - Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:44:27 EST ID:AIswEXs0 No.55581 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1438627467079.jpg -(43312B / 42.30KB, 590x594) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55016

Nice linear perception of time, human.


Does anybody else agree with me when I say that a black hole is basically a glitch in reality? by Georges-Henri Lemaitre - Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:01:11 EST ID:Kc+YGl6y No.54910 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1421607671240.jpg -(104918B / 102.46KB, 700x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 104918
It just shouldn't happen.
22 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Jocelyn Bell - Sat, 25 Jul 2015 02:29:50 EST ID:btfuORYL No.55560 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54910
it's not a "glitch" it's an "exploit"
>>
John Wheeler - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:44:14 EST ID:KrCCke8y No.55564 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1438213454557.jpg -(56755B / 55.42KB, 580x570) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>54914
that is the most autistic thing I've read my whole life.
>>
Alan Guth - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:05:59 EST ID:v2I6+0VG No.55565 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55047
This is the best quality post I've read in a long time on this board. I've never heard of fuzzballs before. But wouldn't the black holes eventually evaporate away as Hawking radiation?
>>
Irwin Shapiro - Wed, 29 Jul 2015 23:18:59 EST ID:415JX8nG No.55566 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55564
Hey I'm not autistic dick face.
I wouldn't use the phrase "glitch in reality", I don't know why I said that, doesn't seem like it lines up with my line of usual thought or philosophy in general. I was probably drunk
>>
George Gamow - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 21:58:26 EST ID:sFc2Gs9d No.55569 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55564

I disagree, what he said makes perfect sense. Black holes are impressive by their sheer magnitude, but are simple objects and--given what we know about mass and gravity--are pretty much inevitable. Flowers, on the other hand, are fucking complicated on many levels and its a wonder such a thing ever came to be at all.

Still though, I can wrap my brain around a flower, but I'm pretty sure trying to truly comprehend the sheer pan-celestial magnitudes of mass, gravity and density that is a black hole would be a veritable Lovecraftian experience.


Time dilation and the Alcubierre drive by Johann Bode - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:30:55 EST ID:/fL15l2I No.55567 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438273855753.jpg -(16840B / 16.45KB, 200x303) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 16840
if one were traveling above c in a ship using an Alcubierre drive, would they experience time dilation?
as i understand it, the object affected by the drive isn't moving but rather space is simply expanding and contracting around it. the object has no velocity and isn't moving in the normal sense.
>>
Karl Swarzchild - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:05:05 EST ID:lHGvTKQL No.55568 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>55567
No, because the entire ship is contained within it's own stationary spacetime bubble.

The negative time generated by dilation will only speed up the journey relatively to the speed of light.


<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.