[x]

Page 2 of 41 2 3 4
1. in before

2.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/

Bingo. Thnx.
3.
##### Originally Posted by coolhandkev

uhhhh they're called time machines and eventually you might be curious to know what the world is like that far out and now you can't do that

if we discovered time machines wouldnt we have already had goo backs coming into our lives and thus already known that there is time travel?
4.
##### Originally Posted by shallowcal

if we discovered time machines wouldnt we have already had goo backs coming into our lives and thus already known that there is time travel?

maybe time machines will only be able to travel forward.

5.
##### Originally Posted by Gotskillz

maybe time machines will only be able to travel forward.

even better
6.
##### Originally Posted by Gotskillz

maybe time machines will only be able to travel forward.

They took our jobs!!!

7.
##### Originally Posted by Gotskillz

maybe time machines will only be able to travel forward.

Forward time travel is possible according to relativity. If people were to travel away from the earth and back at relativistic speeds (close to the speed of light, c), more time would pass on Earth than had passed on their ship. I don't remember the math and I'm sure this is nowhere close to right but say, for example, they traveled away and back for 10 years at .9c, 1000 years would have passed on Earth, effectively traveling 990 years into the future.

Edited By: setherson2 Aug 24th, 2012 at 06:29 PM
8.
##### Originally Posted by setherson2

Forward time travel is possible according to relativity. If people were to travel away from the earth and back at relativistic speeds (close to the speed of light, c), more time would pass on Earth than had passed on their ship. I don't remember the math and I'm sure this is nowhere close to right but say, for example, they traveled away and back for 10 years at .9c, 1000 years would have passed on Earth, effectively traveling 990 years into the future.

So the person would age 10 years but travel 990 years in the future? I don't want to fuck future girls looking 10 years older. I already physically peaked 8 years ago I don't need to decline anymore.
Edited By: Z-Fresh Aug 24th, 2012 at 08:02 PM
9. Bubbling Betelgeuse on brink of destruction

French astronomers created this computer model of Betelgeuse to match observations made using some of the most powerful telescopes which can observe in very high resolution, including the Very Large Array in New Mexico or the Hubble Space Telescope (HST).

10. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/ar...Argument4.html

the world is a good computer simulation
11.
##### Originally Posted by setherson2

Forward time travel is possible according to relativity. If people were to travel away from the earth and back at relativistic speeds (close to the speed of light, c), more time would pass on Earth than had passed on their ship. I don't remember the math and I'm sure this is nowhere close to right but say, for example, they traveled away and back for 10 years at .9c, 1000 years would have passed on Earth, effectively traveling 990 years into the future.

To me, this doesn't really represent a paradox. It's just simply reality in a relativistic framework. A paradox is like a violation of the principle of non-contradiction, that is, p and not p existing at the same time and in the same respect. Things that just cannot be, according to the rules of reality that happen to govern this particular cosmos.

It's pretty easy to tie yourself in knots thinking of possibilities of backwards time travel via worm holes. If I go back in time and kill my Grandfather, do I ever actually exist, then, to do the killing in the first place?

I think the Universe abhors that kind of paradox; true paradox. So, the prevailing understanding is that the Universe's defense mechanism in this case is the radiation given out when theoretically travelling through such a wormhole. It is so tremendous as to render it impossible for any biological or artificial intelligences to fuck with the arrows of time.
12.
##### Originally Posted by Mr Galt

http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/ar...Argument4.html

the world is a good computer simulation

Personally, I think that a lot of this article is bullshit. Not in it's history and descriptionary stuff, lot of good stuff there. But, for me, the whole world as computer is a bit tired. Bishop Berkeley made this line famous in his Three Dialogues (think, The Matrix, but 250 years prior). And, like an old Professor put it to me, there is a reason his ideas are studied at every serious university in the world. Because it is incredibly engaging to think about.

But I think Cantor, Godel, and ultimately Turing, provide a good answer. That computers are fundamentally flawed (aka the halting problem). So the kind of systemic intelligence running this Cosmos is well beyond anything we could envisage a computer in its most powerful form as such, doing. So, the terms computer and simulation are out.

Because whatever solutions we try to imagine, we have brains with neural connections and electrical impulses that are all 3-D. It's simply impossible to even conceive what things in the broader 10 dimensional structure are like. So, what we call computer, simulation, God, transcendental self-perpetuating entity of perceptiveness, etc is really so far off what is really going on, as to almost make the phrase meaningless in its application here.

I'll put it this way. My notions of God are like a fish's ideas about homesickness.

So, first there is the problem of the basic realities of "computer" and "simulation," and their fundamental flaws. And second, it is a misapplication of language.
Edited By: AbnormalQ Aug 25th, 2012 at 03:07 AM
13. in my mind i wanted the jeep braaah guy on this with the "time machine braaah!" Slogan.
14.
##### Originally Posted by AbnormalQ

To me, this doesn't really represent a paradox. It's just simply reality in a relativistic framework. A paradox is like a violation of the principle of non-contradiction, that is, p and not p existing at the same time and in the same respect. Things that just cannot be, according to the rules of reality that happen to govern this particular cosmos.

It's pretty easy to tie yourself in knots thinking of possibilities of backwards time travel via worm holes. If I go back in time and kill my Grandfather, do I ever actually exist, then, to do the killing in the first place?

I think the Universe abhors that kind of paradox; true paradox. So, the prevailing understanding is that the Universe's defense mechanism in this case is the radiation given out when theoretically travelling through such a wormhole. It is so tremendous as to render it impossible for any biological or artificial intelligences to fuck with the arrows of time.

I didn't say it was a paradox. I just attached the link to the wiki page explaining the concept. On the page itself it explains that it really isn't a paradox because one of the twins undergoes an acceleration.

The universe may abhor true paradox on a large scale but when you get into the subatomic universe and things like quantum entanglement and the wave/particle nature of things, paradox is the norm (e.g. Schrodinger's Cat).
Edited By: setherson2 Aug 25th, 2012 at 03:59 AM
15.
##### Originally Posted by setherson2

I didn't say it was a paradox. I just attached the link to the wiki page explaining the concept. On the page itself it explains that it really isn't a paradox because one of the twins undergoes an acceleration.

The universe may abhor true paradox on a large scale but when you get into the subatomic universe and things like quantum entanglement and the wave/particle nature of things, paradox is the norm (e.g. Schrodinger's Cat).

Wasn't meaning you, per se, more just a riff on how we tend to misapply ideas via language that can't really describe the essence of what's going on.

The distinction between large scale and small scale is not really needed either. The physics of the realllllllly intransigently large is much the same as the vagaries of the atomically small. I don't see Schrodinger's Cat as much of a paradox. But rather, what happens when you try to take quantum principles and play them out at the level of experience.
16.
##### Originally Posted by AbnormalQ

The physics of the realllllllly intransigently large is much the same as the vagaries of the atomically small.

Care to elaborate further on this? I remember seeing something about some scientists that were doing supercomputer simulations of black hole interactions and they found that a small black hole orbiting a larger black hole behaved very similar to the way an electron moves about the nucleus of an atom. Really fascinating stuff, hope you have more about it or anything similar.
17. HD video of Curiosity decent:

18. Ah yes, some reality ITT ^^^
19. BTW huge fan of Seth; what you are asking AbQ, is like Penny asking Sheldon to teach her physics....oh wait everyone hates that show ;)

It starts with the work of Cantor, who came up with an ingenious method for establishing the cardinality of infinite sets. with his Diagonal Argument. Basically, he concluded that there is no greatest cardinality. The number of numbers from negative to positive infinity is the same as the number of numbers from 0 to positive infinity. The way I try to summate it is "Infinity is infinity but infinity doesn't adequately explain itself." Because there are entire series of different size infinite sets. Aleph-0, Aleph-1...So, we can know that one infinite set is larger than another infinite set, but that really seems to be about all we can say about it. Since there is no greatest cardinality all infinities are, to us, the same in their opaqueness, even if they are different.

Quite simply, us experiential beings just don't have access to the kinds of systems that can really frame what this is much further; they all fall prey to Godel Incompleteness. This is really kind of esoteric and fucking weird when you get deep into it. So it took a genius like Turing to make sense of it for us. He did so by inventing a machine, basically, the computer. And then showing its fundamental flaw. He did this in his first paper on the Entscheidungsproblem, or colloquially referred to today the Halting Problem. Computers, at their very heart, cannot tell whether or not they are lying. Put another way, no matter how many bits of data you have, even infinitely many bits, you cannot prove all true statements.

But it's not just artificial intelligence, but any kind of system we use will ultimately fail for the same reasons. As another example, see how the system of reason, most formally put forth as symbolic logic, frays at the ends here. Look at the Barber of Seville problem (If the Barber of Seville shaves every man in the village who doesn't shave himself, does the Barber than shave himself?). Russell called the Universal Class of such problems the "class of all classes which are not members of themselves." Reason just starts to break down. Into what? Into what Wittegenstein called atomic propositions. But he could never give an example of one.

Look at Maths. How are we ever to know if a problem is inherently unsolvable, like Hilbert's Second Problem, or if a problem is just ridiculously difficult, like Fermat's Last Theorum? We can't. Statistics, the Integral Calculus. They are only approximations. As an old Oxford Don told me, approximations, yes, but good enough for the men at NASA to still get us to the Moon.

Physics gives way to the Quantum Measurement Problem. And on and on.

What I am trying to flesh out is that there is a hint of Sartre-esque existential dread about all this, like it all doesn't matter. In a sense, we live in one gradation of infinity. Beyond the event horizon of the cosmos, there are likely a multitude of other verses. The infinity of that space is just fucking infinitely larger than the seeming infinity of our cosmos, with its gajillions of light years distance and bajillion stars. And our cosmos' own gradation of infinity is infinitely larger than the infinity that is extant inside the black hole that lies at the center of the Milky Way. Or the infinity that lies at the realllllllly atomically small. There are some ideas about the free energy that exists in the vacuum and how that helped drive Inflation at the beginning of the Big Bang. So, once you get to zero, you start heading into the infinities of negative energy.

So, in a sense, trying to reason out infinity is pointless. Like we are retards just humping doorknobs. Infinity is infinity. The characteristics of one infinite set are the characteristics of all. But to compare one infinite set to another, with tools/systems that are fundamentally and inherently flawed, its just somehow a bit meaningless. Actually, I keep saying that. Meaningless is not accurate, Wittgenstein would be irritated by that word choice. Incomprehensible. Just like the idea of homesickness to a little fish.

To us, one infinity is pretty much just as good as another.
21. That post is worthy of a <cheers> ^^
22. Lurkers' Seal of Excellence ITT, carry on.
23. cool pic
24. A new pic from Curiosity.

Edited By: ApesAreFun Aug 27th, 2012 at 10:46 PM

25.
##### Originally Posted by PokerProErik

The earth is round, silly.
26. for UD (rip):

for us cool kids:

27. Shit just got real son ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363

Researchers have spotted visible-light evidence for one of astronomy's most elusive targets - gravity waves - in the orbit of a pair of dead stars.
28. OH HI. LIGO putting in work?
Edited By: setherson2 Aug 29th, 2012 at 08:02 PM